 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2006 7:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
In 1Cor. 10.8 Paul warns the Corinthians to “…not commit sexual immorality, as some of them [the Israelites] did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.”
The OT event in question is found in Num. 25.1-9, which specifies not 23,000 but 24,000 who died in one day. Is Paul wrong? Can the passages be harmonized?
If Paul simply recalls the number incorrectly, what of inerrancy? The standard verbal plenary take on inspiration protects authors from just this sort of error. Yet it seems we have just such an error here.
Here’s what Gordon Fee (in his 1Cor. commentary) says, in note 28 on the passage he says Paul’s mention of 23,000 is particularly strange “…since a multiple of 23 is so unusual in comparison with a multiple of 24. What is difficult to account for is how such a number might have occurred—or come—to him.” And in the following note (29), he comments:
Most of the “harmonistic” solutions are less than satisfactory at best, e.g., that 23,000 fell on “one day” while the others died later (Mare, 249; this lies beyond the possibility of demonstration, nor does it fit with the plain sense of the text; besides, where did Paul have access to such a tradition?); or that the actual number was 23,500, which the Pentateuch and Paul “round off” in different directions (see H. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible…which he takes quite seriously; but since Paul had access only to the text that already had it rounded off at 24,000, where did he learn of the “correct” number, and why did he round it off downward?).
Fee’s personal take on it lies in this direction:
“It is possible that Paul had one event in mind (Num. 25.9) but his memory picked up the number from a different event (the number of Levites in Num. 26.62); or perhaps he had access to an otherwise unknown tradition of this event, which seems unlikely since all other known Jewish sources have 24,000.”
That, my friends, can’t be squared with your standard doctrine of inerrancy, which insists that all truth-claims made by biblical authors (whether historical, cosmological, or metaphysical) must be taken as truthful and authoritative.
The mention of 23,000 Levites only a chapter later is pretty telling I think. Paul just conflated the event of Num. 25 (in which 24,000 die in one day) with the mention of 23,000 Levites in ch. 26.
The problem with the idea that Paul had a source we don't know of which mentions 23,000 is that though it gets Paul out of the situation of incorrectly quoting his source, it unfortunately has him accurately quoting an inaccurate source, sine the supposed source contradicts what adherents of inerrancy claim regarding the cononical text of Num. 25. Paul is still contradiction THAT canon.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/13/2006 6:16:47 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2006 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not following you POW. Some ARE saying the Bible is sometimes false. For example, when Paul says 23,000 died in one day (if he's referring to Num. 25, which it seems clear he is), his statement is false. It wasn't 23,000, it was 24,000. And if Paul is in THIS instance 'false', doesn't it follow that the Bible in THIS instance is 'false'? Seems so. That's all one needs to contradict strict inerrancy.
Is there anybody who wants to offer a harmony of Num. 25.9 and 1Cor. 10.8 in order to save inerrancy? Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/13/2006 7:56:05 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/13/2006 8:59 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd say...The differences as to day of the last supper, between John and at least another, is not something that I'd call "false." Just a difference. (They give us unleven bread for Roman Eucharists and Leven for Orthodox.) There were points to be made, and the authors, or committees made them. And whether Christ went up the hill or down (I think this is the Chrysostom example) is not "false" one time and "true" another, but are un-critical to the points being made. Further, to the readers and the setting, the potential symbolisms, and/or typologies, etc, etc, are perhaps far more imporant to the stories than what the world we live in here and now would assign.
BTW -- Who's saying that the Bible is false? Why? And to what end?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Forget inerrancy. Just toss it.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | POW-
I don't doubt that there's some wiggle room in the actual events that take place for one author to mention aspects that another ignores so that "differences" arise in the telling of stories. No problem. But if somebody says "It happened on a Thursday" and another says "It [the same "it"] happened on a Saturday," then either both are wrong (because it happened on neither Thursday nor Saturday) or one is right and the other is wrong. That doesn't make the entire point of whatever their overarching story is about false. In talking about 'truth' or 'falsity' here I ONLY mean the actual statement or claim under question, namely, that "It happened on ____." That's all. Paul says it was 23,000. And we take him to be inspired and so his textual claims inerrant. But the Old Testament author says it was 24,000. And we take HIM to be inspired and inerrant too. I'm unable to say they're BOTH right. I'm unable to come up with some twist or slant that'll get them both coming out speaking truthfully. Either both are wrong, or one is right and one is wrong. There aren't any symbolisms or typologies going down here. The number 23,000 is incidental to Paul's main point. He just mentions the number to let his readers know just WHICH plague he's talking about. But in the course of reporting the facts he got ONE fact wrong. No biggie in my opinion. But for inerrantists it's HUGE.
Any inerrantists out there wanna chime in?
POW: Who's saying that the Bible is false? Why? And to what end?
Tom: I am. I'm saying it because two biblical writers make contradictory claims about a historical event. One of them (or both) makes a false claim. I'm saying this because I'd like to know what the truth is about this historical event, and also because I'd like to know what sort of errors, if any, I can expect to find in a book whose authors presume to be telling us the truth about ultimate questions. Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/13/2006 8:24:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't think that there are any inerrantists here, Tom.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2006 9:26 PM (GMT -6) | | No inerrantists here? Come on! I thought everybody but Mephi was an inerrantist. I'm dead serious.
Selah? Alan? Violin? JEE?
No inerrantists?
OK, what about Sparknheart and Laika. You two are inerrantists for sure.
Gosh.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
THE MEANING OF CATHOLICISITY: HOW can we be certain of the veracity any particular .....INTERPRETER of.... the Bible?
And the solution to the problem is?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/13/2006 10:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Paul says it was 23,000. And we take him to be inspired and so his textual claims inerrant. But the Old Testament author says it was 24,000. And we take HIM to be inspired and inerrant too. I'm unable to say they're BOTH right. I'm unable to come up with some twist or slant that'll get them both coming out speaking truthfully. Either both are wrong, or one is right and one is wrong. There aren't any symbolisms or typologies going down here. The number 23,000 is incidental to Paul's main point. He just mentions the number to let his readers know just WHICH plague he's talking about. But in the course of reporting the facts he got ONE fact wrong. No biggie in my opinion. But for inerrantists it's HUGE.
Any inerrantists out there wanna chime in?
Jeff: It has been argued that Num. 25:4, which speaks of the hanging of the "heads of the people," accounts for the other 1000 since they were killed differently than the rest. Don't know how to prove otherwise, myself. It's a logical possibility, at least.
And we have only two approaches, don't we? We can assume it's true until we find error. This is the way historians approach things, right? Or we can do what Meph says: If the Bible CAN be in error in something that is asserted and taught as being true, then HOW can we be certain of the veracity any particular fact in the Bible outside of independent verification?
As I have said before, I'm game to argue from any premises. But when EVERY "particular fact in the Bible" requires "independent verification," how do we even know anything about the atonement or anything of significance? Can we really independently verify that Christ's death was a propitiation? I certainly don't know how we could do that.
Meph, do you have a philosophical argument for the atoning effect of Christ's death? Or is the doctrine of propitiation up for question in your opinion?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/13/2006 9:13:28 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | | I was gonna be lazy...but let me go ahead and do this...
Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. pp.252-254.
The epistemological question is simply, How do we know? Some assertions in the Bible are at least independently verified or falsified. That is to say, the references to historical and scientific matters can, within the limitations of the historical and scientific methods and of the data available, be found to be true or false. Certain other matters, such as doctrinal statements about the nature of God and the test their truth or validity empirically. Now if the Bible should prove to be in error in those realms where its claims can be checked, on what possible basis would we logically continue to hold to its dependability in areas where we cannot verify what it says?
Let us put this another way. Our basis for holding to the truth of any theological position is that the Bible teaches it. If, however, we should concluded that certain propositions (historical or scientific) taught by the Bible are not true, the implications are far-reaching. We cannot then continue to hold to other propositions simply on the grounds that the Bible teaches them. It is not that these other statements have been proved false, but that we cannot be certain they are true. We either must profess agnosticism regarding them or find some other basis for holding them. Since the principle has been abrogated that whatever the Bible teaches is necessarily true, the mere fact that the Bible teaches these other propositions is an insufficient basis in itself for holding them. One may continue to hold these others propositions, of course, but not because of the authority of the Bible.
This point is sometimes regarded as a sort of domino theory—“false in one, false in all.” That is a rather superficial analysis, however. For those who make the point are not suggesting a basis for holding these other propositions. A more accurate summary of their position might be “false in one, uncertain in all.” To be sure, it could be that all the statements of the Bible that are subject to empirical assessment are true, but that some of the transcendent statements are not. In that case, however, there would be at least a presumption in favor of the truth of the latter. But if some of the former prove false, on what possible basis would we continue to hold to the latter?
…
One can, of course, continue to hold to the theological statement by an ad hoc distinction, maintaining that biblical authority applies only to transcendent or doctrinal truths. In so doing, one will have delivered such propositions from possible refutation. But perhaps faith has become nothing more than, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “believing what you don’t know ain’t so.” What is the cost of adopting such an expedient? Immunity from disproof may have been secured at the cost of the meaningfulness of the statement that biblical teachings are true. For if nothing is allowed to count against the truth of biblical teachings, does anything could for them either? (A cognitive statement is capable of being true or false, and therefore it must be possible to specify what would count for or against it.) While this may superficially resemble the verifiability principle of logical positivism, there is a significant difference, for in this case the means of verification (and thus the measure of meaning) is not necessarily and exclusively sense data.
One may give up the statement “whatever the Bible teaches is true” and still logically take a purely fideist position, namely, “I believe these things not because they are in the Bible, but because I choose to,” or “I choose to believe all that statements in the Bible that have not been (or cannot be) disproved.” Or one may find an independent way of establishing these tenets.
Now, in Across the Spectrum section dealing with inerrancy, Doc and Paul Eddy restate the epistemological problem in different terms…page 13
An argument from epistemology.
If we do not accept the view that the Bible is inerrant, then we must accept that the decision as to when the Bible is and is not speaking correctly is in our court. But this means that we have authority over the Bible instead of the other way around. When the Bible agrees with us, we accept its authority. When it does not, we don’t. This is an important authority.
Some may respond that we may assume the Bible is inerrant in all matters of faith and practice but not in so-called irrevelant matters of history or science. There are two problems with this suggestion, however.
First, what inerrant authority did we use to develop this criterion of what is and what is not inerrant in the Bible? There is no such authority. This is simply a convenient thing to believe, so some choose to believe it. As shown, it certainly is not rooted in scripture, tradition, or the teaching of Jesus.
Second, how are we to decide what is and what is not irrelevant? For example, what is to prevent someone from concluding that Paul was simply reflecting an irrelevant aspect of his historically conditioned culture when he denounced fornication or homosexuality? Indeed, how are we to decide what is “history” as opposed to a “matter of faith”? Does the story of the flood belong in the category of inerrant teaching relevant to faith or in the category of irrelevant history? (Meph’s Note: How about Jonah? Or Adam and Eve??)
Now even though Doc and Paul counter this argument well in their defense of infallibility, things get dicey when trying to establish some criteria by which to uphold things…page 21. Emphasis mine.
This essay has supplied good reasons for rejecting some of what the Bible says about the natural world and history. At the same time, though they cannot be addressed in this essay, there are good reasons for accepting what the Bible says about faith and practice. Among other things, all the historical and personal reasons for accepting Jesus as the Son of God are reasons for accepting that the Bible is infallible on the matters he himself trusted it for. Thankfully, this does not require that we pretend that the errors in the Bible are not there.
Of course, this gets RIGHT BACK into the issue of Jesus being a FULL human being and whether or not Jesus could believe wrong things about reality! You would ESSENTIALLY have the same problem that Erickson brought up with scripture. You’d have to make the absurd assumption that Jesus could make “irrelevant” mistakes…but be completely INERRANT on the “really important matters.” The same type of logic that would apply to divinely inspired scripture would have to EVEN MORE SO apply to the completely HUMAN, incarnate Word of God.
“Yeah. Jesus can be wrong on the mustard seed being the smallest seed…but he’s ABSOLUTELY TRUE on Jonah being in the belly of the fish!” | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2006 11:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, bring it on down...
1) POW brings up a good issue. Even IF we grant inerrancy OF TEXT, we DON'T have any inerrant INTERPRETATIONS. And the text has to be interpreted. So I can see why Catholic and Orthodox traditions emphasize tradition and ecclesial authority on matters of faith and doctrine. Not sure how that solves the problem, but...
2) Mephi, you've always said the default approach is "Somethings's true unless we have good reasons to doubt otherwise." But you abandoned this default assumption with Erickson. Now we have to prove objectively the veracity of every individual claim? I just don't see why this should be the case. Erickson's logic is just bad logic. It doesn't follow from the fact that a person is wrong on occasion that we can only trust his veracity on ANY occasion by independently verifying his claim. This logic would also suggest that since a person is right on occasion we ought only to doubt his veracity on any occasion by indepently verifying the counter-claim. If somebody is a pathalogical liar, or generally untruthful, then we've got reason to begin with doubting him. But if a person is a generally accurate person, morally commited to truth and honesty, and who has suffered for the truth of his claims, then I'd say we have very good reasons to trust him and should only doubt when we have very good independent reasons to do so.
Not sure where to go with this now, except to say that Erickson's reasoning doesn't really solve anything.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 11:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
scripture must be true enough to testify and lead us to the Truth/God
How true is true enough?
Can the Bible be wrong on it's position on homosexuality...but still be true enough to lead us in to Truth about how to relate to God? Can it be wrong on death being the enemy of God? What?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 11:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
1) POW brings up a good issue. Even IF we grant inerrancy OF TEXT, we DON'T have any inerrant INTERPRETATIONS. And the text has to be interpreted. So I can see why Catholic and Orthodox traditions emphasize tradition and ecclesial authority on matters of faith and doctrine. Not sure how that solves the problem, but...
It doesn't solve the problem. It just sets up an authority structure such that people can FEEL LIKE the problem is solved. Just like the doctrine of inerrancy.
****************************
Tom:
2) Mephi, you've always said the default approach is "Somethings's true unless we have good reasons to doubt otherwise." But you abandoned this default assumption with Erickson. Now we have to prove objectively the veracity of every individual claim? I just don't see why this should be the case. Erickson's logic is just bad logic.It doesn't follow from the fact that a person is wrong on occasion that we can only trust his veracity on ANY occasion by independently verifying his claim. This logic would also suggest that since a person is right on occasion we ought only to doubt his veracity on any occasion by indepently verifying the counter-claim. If somebody is a pathalogical liar, or generally untruthful, then we've got reason to begin with doubting him. But if a person is a generally accurate person, morally commited to truth and honesty, and who has suffered for the truth of his claims, then I'd say we have very good reasons to trust him and should only doubt when we have very good independent reasons to do so.
First, I have openly done a variation of the fideistic thing that Erickson talked about...
“I choose to believe all that statements in the Bible that have not been (or cannot be) disproved.”
This is, in fact, what I do...by and large. And I'm sliding down the very same slippery slope that he warns about in the rest of his talk in scripture in that portion of the book.
Second, Erickson is NOT saying what you are saying he's saying. He's talking about CERTAINTY of the truth of biblical teachings. If we introduce the idea that the Bible can genuinely be wrong on something that is taught by a biblical author, then we cannot be CERTAIN of the verity of any individual biblical teaching JUST because it's a biblical teaching in divinely inspired literature. We'd have to look at other factors to garner reliability (not certainty), like demonstrated character...just like you are doing. And I HOPE that you see that THAT doesn't help that much. Well intentioned, morally-upstanding people of conviction can be VERY wrong. Surely, you know this, Tom.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 11:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Could Jesus make "relevant" mistakes? Everybody, Mephi included, says no. But everybody defines what determines relevancy differently. For Mephi, Jesus' being perfeclty accurate about Jonah, or Adam and Eve, or even the nature of divine love are not relevant issues. But surely Mephi believes there are SOME relevant issues that Jesus could not have been wrong and still been God-incarnate purposfully come to earth. Surely Mephi agrees that Jesus' being God-incarnate on a mission, and knowledgeable of that mission, has SOME implications for Jesus' belief states. I haven't heard Mephi argue for the real possibility of Jesus' totally missing it about everything of ultimate importance.
Of course, Jesus wouldn't miss it on EVERYTHING of ultimate importance...but it's possible that he could miss a HECK of a lot more than many people would feel comfortable admitting.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 11:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hold up.
Let's try something.
Let's say that Jesus were "wrong" on...
--what hell was
--Adam and Eve being literal
--Jonah
--His take on OT scripture
--Sodom and Gommorah actually happening
--the 3-tiered view of creation
--how the end judgement was going to be.
--his belief in angels
Would Jesus STILL be Savior and Lord by his ministry, death, and resurrection? Would God STILL be able to call him His Anointed?
Just think about it.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/14/2006 12:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Would Jesus STILL be Savior and Lord by his ministry, death, and resurrection? Would God STILL be able to call him His Anointed?
Jeff: I think the answer to these questions is, "maybe." How could you prove it? It's just a claim like all the others.
The issue is not whether Christ is lord, anyway. We all believe THAT. The question is, WHAT, as Lord, does Christ will for us to do? If he is indifferent to homosexuality, then we need a hermeneutic to understand that. For there are good non-biblical reasons for believing lesbians who want to have babies are not designed for BOTH the desire for only same-gender love (or monogamous same-gender love) AND maternal instinct--i.e., if God, as Designer, is benevolent in the first place. For why would a benevolent designer create conflicting desires that way?
You, however, seem to argue as if homosexuality should be considered neutral and then conclude that scripture is false on the matter. I don't see that as being the easier position to defend. It seems to create even GREATER problems for understanding God's will and benevolence. Am I missing something, here?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/14/2006 12:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: The issue is not whether Christ is lord, anyway. We all believe THAT. The question is, WHAT, as Lord, does Christ will for us to do?
Tom: Thank you Jeff! Finally! Somebody gets it! BOOOOOOOOM.
Jeff: If he is indifferent to homosexuality, then we need a hermeneutic to understand that. For there are good non-biblical reasons for believing lesbians who want to have babies are not designed for BOTH the desire for only same-gender love (or monogamous same-gender love) AND maternal instinct--i.e., if God, as Designer, is benevolent in the first place. For why would a benevolent designer create conflicting desires that way?
Tom: Mephi, see the issue now? It's NOT just "How much of Jesus can we remove or dismiss and still manage to leave ourselves with someone qualified to save us." It's "How does Jesus demonstrate the saved life?"
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
| 145 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|