Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
Whirled Views 11.21
Good morning!
Today’s movie quote:
“Is this heaven?”
“No, it’s Iowa.”
HT: Peter L.
Topic: Watercooler Chatter, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
CURRENT ISSUE
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
feedWORLD on Twitter
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
http://bit.ly/8pYXbH
About 12 hours ago
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
http://bit.ly/4I1l0v
About 13 hours agoFollow Us On Twitter >>
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses
http://bit.ly/2zMnUi
About 1 day ago
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
back to top79 Comments to “Whirled Views 11.21”
HATE CRIME ALERT!
Is this article a hate crime? Should Slate change its name to Hate?
http://tinyurl.com/2xehs8
Report comment to moderator
Part 2 here:
http://tinyurl.com/23zu88
Report comment to moderator
Field of Dreams
Report comment to moderator
I think you misquoted Lynn. It should read, “Is this heaven?” “No, it’s Georgia.”
Report comment to moderator
oops “…..misquoted, Lynn…..”
I just woke up so I have an excuse for bad punctuation.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. For once WV is posted early enough that I can look at it before going to work, and I even recognize the quote, and someone else gets it first. Oh well.
Iowa is a pretty nice place to live. It would never have occurred to me to pick out Iowa to move to, but that’s how things worked out, and this is the best place I’ve lived so far, in terms of people being friendly and helping each other out, good schools, lots of community groups to be involved in, good church, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: I have a sister in a little burg called New Albin, right on the Minnesota border on the banks of the Mississippi. She’s a transplant from southern California who absolutely loves it: charming homes, (mostly) great neighbors, great little church, quietness, etc.
We’ve visited, enviously, and would love to relocate to that general area if I could find a decent job.
Report comment to moderator
Pam,
Georgia is nice, but we sure need the rain. I’d have to say the nicest place I’ve ever been is Switzerland though. I was perusing the L’bri website and I got homesick (?) for the mountains, and the miles and miles of walking trails….
Report comment to moderator
Agreed, Pauline. Never in a million years would I have imagined leaving the East Coast to settle down in Iowa for 20 years of my life, but that’s how things turned out. The Lord does indeed move in mysterious ways . . .
Report comment to moderator
Check out this Chuck Norris endorsement… …made me laugh.
(Seems like something World would pick up on, so I apologize if it’s already been linked from here.)
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Derek. I think he just won my vote.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Derek. It’s funny–gotta show it to my hubbie.
Report comment to moderator
Night Train–
I guess if we’re going to accuse “Slate” of a “hate crime” we’ll have to also accuse the American Psychological Association and the people who did the research. I’ve seen this stuff published elsewhere recently.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone here have any recommendations for a good book arguing for the inerrency of Scripture? I’ve been considering the concept recently and found that everyone I’ve ever heard/read on the subject doesn’t take seriously enough the problem of demonstrating something to be entirely without error and the overwhelming degree of evidence that would be required to make such an assertion probable. Any suggestions?
Report comment to moderator
Good morning everyone!
As promised, I am going to go ahead today with the “College Football Saturday” Contest due to the holidays and some big games on Friday.
This Saturday, ESPN’s College Football Game Day will be broadcasting live @ 10 a.m. from Kansas City, MO for the game between (#4) Missouri and (#2) Kansas. It should be a very good game!
For our contest, pick the winner (not the score) of the following 5 games:
(#13) Texas (9-2) @ Texas A&M (6-5)
(game is on Friday @ 3:30 p.m. on ABC)
Arkansas (7-4) @ (#1) LSU (10-1)
(game is on Friday @ 2:30 p.m. on CBS)
(#10) Boise State (10-1) @ (#15) Hawaii (10-0)
(game is on Friday @ 9:00 p.m. on ESPN2)
(#8) Virginia Tech (9-2) @ (#16) Virginia (9-2)
(game is on Saturday @ 12 noon on ESPN2)
(#2) Kansas (11-0) @ (#4) Missouri (10-1)
(game is Saturday @ 8:00 p.m. on ABC)
As always, the tiebreaker is the Tennessee game vs whomever they are playing. Pick the winner and the score:
(#18) Tennessee (8-3) @ Kentucky (7-4)
(the game is on Saturday @ 1:30 on CBS)
Go Vols!
Please have your picks in by 3:30 p.m. CT on Friday.
Everyone is invited to play, whether you know about football or not. It’s just for fun, and the winner receives a hot-off-the campfire, warm, gooey *digital* S’more. What could be better than that?
Report comment to moderator
Stephen,
Why exactly would it be necessary to “prove” there were no errors in Scripture before believing there were not? People have been trying to prove errors for thousands of years, and have never come up with anything that attacks the basic text. Starting all over again to prove it oneself seems fruitless.
But more important, if we know who God is, that He is perfect, that the Bible came from Him, that He intended His Word to be error free, that He was fully engaged in the writing–that seems to me like a better place to start. And the incredible way that Scripture fits together, prophecies are fulfilled, Scripture addresses the way people really are, etc. clearly demonstrates it is from God.
No book recommendations off the top of my head, since I can’t think of any that focus on this topic and it has simply never been a struggle for me. (Not to say it shouldn’t be a struggle for someone else, but it never has been for me.)
Report comment to moderator
0241
0241
241+0241
02410241
0241
As I said Oh Spanish teacher, I am not getting it.
Georgia? No, somebody just misspelled Idaho. Switzerland? Too crowded but pretty. Idaho has thousands of miles of hiking trails as well, by the way, it is just a little more challenging to get to them, you have to walk.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca, if you’re hanging around, I left a comment for you on the 20- to 30-somethings in counseling thread, and I see there are other comments for you on the navel-gazing thread.
Report comment to moderator
Derek,
I liked the Chuck Norris endorsement.
Mike Huckabee seems like a nice guy. Too nice for Washington? (What a sad commentary.)
Report comment to moderator
Stephen, if I understand your request correctly, it doesn’t sound if anything would exist that would meet the criteria that you have set forth. To put it another way, it sounds as if you are placing an unrealistic expectation (the requirement of “perfect knowledge” — if this is expected, then we cannot know anything for sure) in order to take inerrancy seriously. However, there are two problems with this approach: 1) it seems to rely upon a strictly naturalistic/materialistic approach to examining said data; and 2) if so, this would demonstrate a bias in such considerations. The first is a faulty presumption (it is inherently self-contradictory) and the second is an example of special pleading (such a restriction is often not held consistently with other areas of knowledge).
If you are asking for good resources on this topic, that is another matter. But if you are requiring that a resource deal every possible skeptical objection that has every been raised or will ever be raised, and to know such perfectly without any possibility of a contrary explanation, I’m afraid that sort of thing does really not exist in any realm of knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
My picks (I’m going with a few upsets, to separate myself from the pack!):
1) Texas A&M
2) LSU
3) Boise State
4) Virginia
5) Mizzou
Tie-Breaker: Kentucky over Tennessee, 34-21
Report comment to moderator
It’s officially our 20th anniversary today.
But, with the family tragedy and Thanksgiving, and my youngest sister and our daughter coming home today for the holiday, it’s slipping by! I just realized it!
My husband is very busy at work, and I’ll bet he doesn’t realize what today is, yet.
Cest La Vie
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I’m not interested in simply believing things without rational justifications for believing them. So if there’s no probable evidence for the Bible being inerrant then I’m not about to switch to “blind belief”.
TJ, I was hoping you’d weigh in on this one. You’ll notice I very carefully refrained from asking for “proof” and confined myself to probability. I certainly don’t want a resource that deals with every possible skeptical question! But what I’m interested in is a more philosophically rigorous approach to the question of inerrancy that recognizes the difficulty of probable textual perfection, particularly when weighted against other alternatives. I certainly do not want to presume materialism, however, I do think that it’s the only sphere we can arrive at solely through induction — anything else must be demonstrated to be necessary from it and not presumed. Think about me as starting from Descartes, not Van Til.
Report comment to moderator
Happy Anniversary, EYG!
Hope you appreciate this anecdote.
Back in 1999, former Denver Bronco wide receiver Ed McCaffrey had his bell rung on the field, suffering another concussion. His wife Lisa wasn’t worried. “When he didn’t remember our anniversary,” she explained, “I knew he was OK.”
Report comment to moderator
Pam W wins! Field of Dreams is correct! Please enjoy your digital cappucino…
~@)
Report comment to moderator
Yesterday I promised cookies – there are plenty to go around, help yourself
Chocolate chip:
(…) (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) (…)
Peanut butter chip
(@@@) (@@@) (@@@) (@@@) (@@@) (@@@) (@@@) (@@@)
Sugar:
(+++) (+++) (+++) (+++) (+++) (+++) (+++) (+++) (+++)
Oatmeal raisen
(*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*) (*.*)
Non-fat,dietic
() () () () () () () () () () () () ()
Enjoy!
Report comment to moderator
mumsee- ‘A’ for Effort. Use the left ALT key, and the number pad, unless you are using a MAC, in which case I think you hold the apple (or what ever is right next to the space bar), but since I have never used a MAC in Spanish (at least not since the 90s) yo no sé.
Report comment to moderator
(…) (@)
Gracias, Mommy (seems strange typing that). NOTICE doubters: I only took two, as my mother (RIP) taught me.
Report comment to moderator
1, 2 and 13 (NT and Janie)
So I guess they’re saying they think it’s true? Yikes. :O Scary stuff.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen, You are right to not have blind faith. God never asked us to have that. Perhaps it would help if you listed some of the books you have already read and rejected or questioned.
Report comment to moderator
Think about me as starting from Descartes, not Van Til.
This may be your “problem”, Stephen. A Cartesian starting point will necessarily be subjective in nature (man-centered, if you will) as opposed to a God-centered starting point (something that Cheryl D. excellently pointed out in her post).
To say that materialism “the only sphere we can arrive at solely through induction” is part of the problem as well: materialism begins with certain axioms that cannot be derived at via induction (they must instead be “presumed”). Furthermore, induction itself is a huge problem for this approach (no guarantees that the past will be like the future, etc. — historically, this has been noted by such skeptics/atheists as Hume and Russell).
Probability itself presents a problem: taking the number of “correct” outcomes divided by the number of “possible” outcomes, mathematically speaking, approaches zero as the denominator (the number of possible outcomes) increases. Probability, while useful, is a poor indicator of “accuracy” in terms of sources of knowledge. BTW, you mentioned Descartes in conjunction with probability; did you perhaps mean Pascal, instead?
Your comments to Cheryl above seem indicate another problem with your approach: you seem to be equating anything short of “perfect” knowledge with “blind faith” (this is probably — aha! — not what you meant, but it is the impression you are giving). Rational knowledge is not based upon a “total” understanding of all possible knowledge. For 2000 years, Christians have believed what they believe because their faith was not separate from evidence and reason (despite what some of the “new atheists” today might suggest to the contrary — they have been corrected on this, and yet continue to repeat the untruth, but I digress). There are various sources of knowledge. The philosophy textbook I just picked up off my bookshelf, for instance, lists four: sense perception, reason, intuition, and authoritative testimony. This last one is certainly applicable to the area of Biblical truth/inerrancy/authority/etc. It is used in many (all?) areas of rational discourse, and yet it is often overlooked (assumed?) without a second thought. For example, most of the things we discuss on this blog and in everyday life we believe because we rely upon various reliable sources for that knowledge. With regard to scientific discoveries, for instance, we are not all going to the laboratories as individuals and doing the necessary experiments to come up with such results empirically — we are dependent others for such knowledge (our “authoritative source”). What you seem to be suggesting is that you want “proof” that the Bible is a “reliable source”. If it is mere probability that you are after, then you should answer Cheryl’s question about what level you would consider acceptable.
If you are looking things from an emperical/evidential perspective (rather than a presuppositional/van Tillian perspective), then I am probably not the one you wish to dialog with, though.
Report comment to moderator
ñ wow! 241 oops ñ neato!
I did not know what a number pad was so was using the wrong numbers, but you knew that.
The cookies look lovely mommy, but I have not yet had my oatmeal with flax seeds so I will check back in a little while.
Your mom was a good woman, Peter L, was she a believer? I hope to meet her later and thank her for her teaching.
Report comment to moderator
Well, as the kids have no school today, oldest of batch 2 decided to sleep out in the dog house last night. The dogs prefered sleeping in the mudroom until three this morning. I look forward to seeing how it turned out. The temp was around twenty this morning. The girls are hoping to sleep out tonight.
Report comment to moderator
That is cute, Travis. Thanks
We’re happily married, I’m just letting the stress of life have too big a slice right now.
I hope I’ll stop doing that as I grow up. I’m trying not to do that anymore. Just the fact that I know I have to purposely change my focus, means I must be growing up some.
We are having a happy 20th, despite all of this. We’re glad to be together, and we recognize that we’re not guaranteed a tomorrow together and that we do need to be grateful and to enjoy the here and now.
I love your sense of humor, Travis. That anecdote reminds me that this (somehow) is funny.
I know he thinks I’m mad at him. . .
Report comment to moderator
KI, I haven’t read much beyond the typical mainstream apologeticists (is that even a word?) who are generally less rigorous then they should be (Geisler, Wright, Sproul, etc.). Unfortunately, the people that I’ve consulted haven’t been able to point me out to anything more rigorous, so I thought I’d toss it out here.
TJ, I have Bahnsen’s nine hundred page edition of Van Til’s work, and, while I have yet to come close to finishing it, I’m at least presently convinced that presuppositionalism doesn’t work (to presuppose the Bible to be inerrant seems far too complicated a proposition to be properly basic). Knowledge is inherently subjective and absolutely must begin from a man-centered position (i.e. one cannot conclude that God exists before one recognizes that he himself exists). I haven’t read much Russell, but Hume doesn’t concern me greatly, given his extraordinary skepticism of pretty much everything.
I certainly am not equating anything short of perfection with blind faith! I am, however, equating anything short of probability as requiring blind faith — and that’s simply not a step I’m willing to take, though Kierkegaard may well change that when I get around to reading him. In this sense, I don’t see probability being an issue since it’s a yes/no question: either the Bible is inerrant or it is not, there are no other possibilities. Now, you’re quite right that I have yet to determine what evidence I would consider to be probable, but that’s part and parcel of what I was hoping to get out of some reading suggestions! For me, the ideal text would first make a case for a given [high] standard of probability and then proceed to justify inerrancy based upon that standard.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen, you and I are not going to agree on the starting point (with regard to God-centered v. man-centered). I would consider the Cartesian shift to actually be an historical low-point as far as philosophical arguments go, and it has given rise to much of the subjective problems of today (I would add, such an approach, if consistently held, runs the risk of plunging one into rampant skepticism and/or nihilism). I believe Descartes ontological assessments were quite well-intentioned (and even useful), but as long long as you see man as the reigning authority in the area of knowledge, you will not solve your problem. Also, your interpretation of Bahnsen/van Til might need to be tweaked a bit: the overriding presupposition is not “inerrancy” or the Bible (or the combination of the two), but the existence of God Himself (special revelation would flow from this basic presupposition).
“Apologist”, btw, is the word you were looking for.
Here are a few sources for you to consider (you may have read some of them). Since the filters are working, it might be a while before this post shows up. To the list I might also add Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God, which is not strictly van Tillian in nature, but is presuppositional (and helps explain some of the “problems” with such an approach).
Web articles (one is a “web book”)”:
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt042.htm
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_witness_archer.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm
http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/inerncy.htm
http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html
John Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (this one isn’t on inerrancy, per se, but deals with issues of knowledge, etc.)
Walter Kaiser, The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Hope that helps.
Report comment to moderator
Hail Club Iowa! I lived in West Des Moines for 9 months when I was six.
- Shakey’s Pizza ruled!
- Good minor hockey program. We went to many Des Moines Oak Leaf AAA games.
- I joined Indian Guides.
- Drake had a good hoops team, and nearly beat UCLA and Lew Alcindor who were in the midst of winning 88 strait games.
- Iowa is surprisingly hilly, we had a good sledding hill between ours and our neighbors yard.
My biggest memory though was in first grade – the day our principal, an olderly, stern gentleman wearing a dark suit and tie walked into our classroom during the middle of an afternoon. We all paused nervously. The capital P Principal! He never comes into the class! He called our pretty, young teacher (think of Miss Beadle from Little House on the Prairie) out into the hall for a conversation. I could hear her crying. She never returned, and he took over the class for the rest of the day. He then explained to us that her brother had been killed in Vietnam. You don’t forget stuff like that.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy, your comment about the children sleeping outside made me laugh. My siblings and I and neighborhood friends slept outside in every kind of place we could find: greenhouse shelves, back of an open pick-up, shacks we made, homemade tents. It was the thrill of it all. Now my bed feels oh so good! But playing hide and seek or tag in the dark was so fun! As was the reading outloud with flashlights or telling stories in the dark. Hope they had fun.
Report comment to moderator
#29 Bianca,
I have no idea whether it is true or not, but obviously some researchers think so. They often come to conclusions about things long before I do.
Report comment to moderator
(#13) Texas (9-2) @ Texas A&M (6-5) Texas (I really cannot stand either team, but I don’t think the Aggies have two big upsets in them.)
Arkansas (7-4) @ (#1) LSU (10-1) LSU
(#10) Boise State (10-1) @ (#15) Hawaii (10-0) I don’t really know either team, but since it is at home, I’ll say Hawaii
(#8) Virginia Tech (9-2) @ (#16) Virginia (9-2) Virginia (Home field advantage, I guess.)
(#2) Kansas (11-0) @ (#4) Missouri (10-1) Mizzou-RAH! Here’s hoping for a Tiger vs Tiger BCS Championship game (though the only way Mizzou goes is if they can beat Oklahoma on the Big 12 Championship.)
(#18) Tennessee (8-3) @ Kentucky (7-4) TN 21-20.
Report comment to moderator
Iowa- Going there this afternoon, unless the snow is too thick to drive through. Are you getting it yet, Pauliine and Outkast?
¡Feliz Aniversario de Boda, EYG!
mumsee- Good job! Do you want the rest of the characters like á,é,í,ó, & ú? As to my mother, she was RC, but never knew God in a personal way. I was told she had a deathbed conversion, but the source of that news was not reliable. I hope it was the case, though.
Derek- Is that Chuck Norris ad for real or just a youtube funny?
Report comment to moderator
Stephen / TJ: J. R. Packer’s “‘Fundamentalism’ and the Word of God” is another possibility – concise and accessable.
Report comment to moderator
RR: thanks for the recommendation!
Report comment to moderator
@Peter L: Apparently it’s for real – it’s on Mike Huckabee’s front page.
Report comment to moderator
I think I ate some corn from Iowa once but have flown over it many times
Truthfully, I’ve got nothing against Iowa and suspect that it is God fearing, a fine place to raise a family and live well. Otherwise Outkast wouldn’t live there. If you were born in the Ozark Mountains the only ones you could possibly, and I mean possibly, look down on would be a couple of Indian Reservations that don’t have casinos, trees or anything else green, water or food
Report comment to moderator
One more recommendation (that, inexplicably, RR’s post reminded me of): The first volume of B.B. Warfield’s Works has several essays that deal with the topic of inspiration. It’s probably not as “accessible” as Packer, but certainly more so than van Til!
Report comment to moderator
TJ, ah yes, “apologist”! Momentary mental lapse there, heh.
Just to clarify I don’t see “man as the reigning authority in the area of knowledge”. A better representation of my position would be that God is the sole authority in the area of objective knowledge, since objective knowledge necessitates omniscience, but to assert that our knowledge is man-centered is simply to recognize our subjectivity in the world. In my opinion, the concept of “knowledge” is often confused with the concept of “truth”, in that people often jump from knowledge being subjective to truth being subjective, which is of course not necessarily true.
I will go back and re-examine Bahnsen (it’s been a while), but I don’t see how presuming the existence of God is any better (it seems to require an extraordinary host of other presumptions as to the attributes of “God”). I see here a disconnect in our approaches, in that you, as a presuppositionalist, tend to judge ideas on their results (eg. leading to skepticism and nihilism), while I, as an evidentialist, am quite willing to incur whatever results follow “come hell or high water”.
I did look at Frame, but the reviews on Amazon seemed to indicate it to be an introductory text, so I figured I’d just go straight to Bahnsen’s compendium. I will, however, add him and Warfield to my [ridiculously long] reading list and peruse the links you provided. Much thanks!
RR, thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Peter L,
Right now it is rain mixed with snow. No problems driving, but it’s cold and wet and I didn’t think to wear a winter jacket this morning.
Report comment to moderator
“Think about me as starting from Descartes, not Van Til.”
I would also tend to shy away from Descartes as a starting point. This is partly because of a book I’ve read recently, and a realization I’ve had. I’ve recently realized I’ve been trying to prove the existence of God and the truth of Christianity for the last 20 years – based upon a Cartesian starting point. I realize it’s not possible… The book I read, was Proper Confidence (etc) by Lesslie Newbiggin. He traces the sad effects of Cartesian thinking on our society, and concludes (rightly I think) that it ends in skepticism and nihilism. (As TJ points out.)
I would like to explore Newbiggins thinking a little more on this score, but what I think he says is that our confidence of the truth is based upon a personal relationship with God. Given the nature of all knowledge based upon unprovable (and doubtable) assumptions, “Faith” is not so blind as it’s made out to be. In fact as Os Guinness pointed out more than 20 years ago in his book “In Two Minds,” faith and knowledge are much more closely related than current empericists will acknowledge. (A fact which TJ also seems to point out.)
Report comment to moderator
The forecast for tomorrow in Nashville is rain turning to flurries. Flurries of what, I’d like to know. If they mean that white stuff that comes down in the winter, it’s not winter, and even children don’t usually pray for a white Thanksgiving. Well, hopefully it will be OK for driving.
My brother’s house will have quite a group: 12 adults and one baby, scooting, and three dogs, one of which doesn’t like other dogs and one that likes female dogs a little TOO well. Last year my collie, the only dog that was behaving, had to stay outside on a chain the whole time because the other dogs were treating her so badly–one even lunged at her throat a couple times. So hopefully it won’t be raining over there, or my poor dog will probably have to spend the day in the car just to keep safe and dry!
Report comment to moderator
Stephen, your last post was quite a bit clearer (or, at least, managed to penetrate my thick skull!). I see what you are saying and agree with it to an extent (at least the extent I understand it). Truth is not subjective (we agree) and (if I am understanding you correctly — for which this is an example!) our interpretation of truth is often a mixture of truth and error. I would argue that is a result of the Fall (i.e., the noetic effect of sin — our thinking has been affected as a result). To say this presuppositionally (of course!), our interpretation of the facts/truth/evidence will always be colored by our presuppositions/assumptions/worldview (however you wish to refer to it). One does not have to be a strict presuppositionalist to argue this way, but it is one reason I am not an evidentialist (though, of course, I see the value of evidences). The principle of the supremacy and authority of God in our thinking, rather than the naturalistic assumption of the autonomy of man, must be overriding, imo.
If I may make a suggestion, you might want to check out Bahnsen’s Pushing the Antithesis. It is actually material culled from a series of lectures he did (and is similar to his Always Ready in that regard), but reads much more like a college textbook. However, it would be somewhat introductory (and therefore simpler than his Analysis of vT book), so Frame might be better to get a fresher approach to the methodology.
Report comment to moderator
EYG,
Happy Anniversary! and congratulations on 20 years of marriage.
We celebrate our 23rd on Saturday…. (I hope I manage to do something special for my sweetie!)
Report comment to moderator
Travis – That was a very sad memory/story of your 1st grade teacher hearing the news of her brother’s death while serving in Vietnam. I was a Senior in high school when my boyfriend (at the time – and now my husband) came to say goodbye to me.
He left for Vietnam in February 1970 – it was a warm and sunny day. Thankfully, he made it home!
Parents, Grandparents – A Christmas video recommendation for children – “Annabelle’s Wish” – A very sweet story of a young boy and a Christmas calf.
60 degrees here in southwestern New York state today – the snow is coming, unfortunately.
Report comment to moderator
UT
LSU
Boise St.
VT
Missouri
Kentucky 24-13
Report comment to moderator
MiM,
23! That’s great.
What would she really love?
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man,
I may agree in twenty years, but for now I do not. All subjective knowledge certainly is doubtable, but it does not follow from this that all propositions are therefore equally probable. That 1+1=2 is more likely than you not existing before this very moment but simply being instantaneously created with all the memories you currently have.
TJ,
Let’s split the difference and say that my clarity improved to such a point as to penetrate your thick skull! Just to clarify further, I certainly do not object to the principle of God’s supremacy dominating our thinking. My objection is to the presumption that simply because it is the ultimate principle it should therefore be the primary one.
I’d disagree that our subjective perception of the world is an instance of the noetic effect (if you were saying that, I wasn’t quite sure). It’s not merely the result of sin affecting our mental processes, but rather inherently a part of being less than omniscient. An example will most easily clarify what I mean. Let us suppose that I state, “I love my father”. It is a simple phrase and very straightforward, but your interpretation of it will not tell you precisely what I meant, only what you think me to have meant. To know exactly you would have to ask me to clarify my terms, so I might reply that “The person defined by the memories which the speaker has agape loves his biological father”. This is much more precise, as it clarifies how I am defining “I”, “love”, and “father”, but it does not tell you exactly what I mean, for of course I must now explain what I meant by “person”, “memories”, “speaker”, “agape”, and “biological”. Every further refinement brings one closer to understanding my meaning, but unless one’s knowledge is omniscient one will never get there. This seems to fit quite well with presuppositionalism, which leads me to believe we may be in agreement here.
That new Bahnsen book does look quite interesting — it’s a shame one cannot easily compare it with Frame’s book (our local Christian bookstore carries neither).
Report comment to moderator
Chuck Norris for president!
Report comment to moderator
I’m not being deliberately obtuse, but just what do you think is “errant” in the Bible, Stephen? Surely you aren’t saying you can actually prove that God didn’t create the earth, the universe. What proofs would you bring to court that couldn’t be countered? You can call certain things in the Bible “myth” all you want, but you can only counter those “myths” with a theory of how it was done. You have no witnesses, and science doesn’t have all the answers. Scientists can only take you as far as the evidence they have, and that evidence is incomplete. And I can’t imagine how you can prove Christ wrong. Or Paul for that matter. How will you prove that he wasn’t caught up into heaven? Because it hasn’t happened to you or anyone you know? How will you prove that Christ didn’t speak to him? I personally believe that something very profound happened to him because he literally did a 180 in his life and stuck to it to his death. How will you prove the “errors” in Revelations?
At some point, all of us are left to answer the question Christ asked: who do you say I am? You will always be left with a yes or no question of faith. I guess to me it’s pretty simple.
EYG, congratulations on 20 years. I hope this holiday season won’t be too hard on the family.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I certainly would call a great many things in the Bible myths, but to call something a “myth” says nothing about its truthfulness, since the term simply means a traditional story of some cultural importance. For me, it’s not a question of having a particular passage I wish to dispute — I don’t. I am not debating the Bible’s general historical accuracy, but rather the leap of logic that it is therefore inerrant. To say that a book is without error in any respect is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence to demonstrate, and I have yet to see evidence strong enough to justify such a belief.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
Thank you for the links – that’s what I was looking for in our email conversation a couple weeks back.
The fifth link was particularly interesting, as it points out the problems in the usual arguments made for an inerrant Bible. I think the approach he finally does propose is along the lines of how I tend to think of it.
The fourth link was also very interesting for what it suggested one did not have to believe inerrancy means. His emphasis on “What is the point the author is trying to convey?” is, I think, my husband’s view, but my husband uses the word infallibility rather than inerrancy because he differs with those who generally teach inerrancy. For instance, the author of that article points out that the authors of Scripture may not have been trying to convey Jesus’ exact words but rather his overall meaning. Considering the differences between how Jesus speaks in John and in the Synoptics, that seems very reasonable to me. But it’s not typical of how believers in inerrancy usually view the matter, at least in my experience.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
Thank you, and Cheryl D. did give me your sweet message in person! It was so neat to meet her face to face.
Will see husband in about an hour or so 9:30 pm. He drove to the airport to get my little sister and our daughter. We’ll have to celebrate some other time!
Report comment to moderator
Stephen, your perspective on the limitations of interpretation being based (solely?) on a lack of exhaustive knowledge is intriguing (honestly, I’ve never heard anyone argue exactly that way before), but I think you are missing out if you do not acknowledge the affect sin has upon our thinking. The “I love my father” example is also interesting, but it does point out that various words must be interpreted (and often are) according to widely accepted meanings of those words. You used one example in a paragraph, yet you could not have communicated that paragraph to me unless most of the words in that paragraph already had set meanings that you and I would generally agree upon (indeed, we would not get very far in discourse if we had to painstaking explain every single word in enormous detail — that’s not the way language ordinarily works). The fact that you communicated to me in that fashion tends to demonstrate that you acknowledge such communication is possible (and even highly probable!). And your last statement to NJL basically boils down to your view of the Bible to begin with (and this is where the presuppositionalism comes in again): if God exists, and the Bible is what it claims to be, then there is no higher standard by which it can be measured. To put it another way, if it is the word of God, then it must be self-authenticating. This, I think, is a failing of evidentialism, but only if evidentialism seeks to resort to a “higher standard” than Scripture as the word of God (if the evidential approach only seeks to show the consistency between the two, then I don’t have a problem). If someone claims that a fallible human being with fallible mental faculties using a fallible standard to judge (according to his own autonomous standards) whether the Bible is inerrant, then I have a problem.
Pauline, I think you need to be careful in how you read the fourth link and in how the term “infallible” is used. For example, it was once (and in some cases, still is) used by those of the neo-orthodox persuasion to say that Bible has errors but it “becomes” the word of God (in its reading) and thus “becomes” infallible. Jack Rogers, a former moderator in the PCUSA, would be an example of someone who holds to an interpretation like this (I believe one of those links actually references Rogers and Donald McKim). I point this out because some (McKim and Rogers come to mind first!) have used the distinction between the words as a “cop-out” to get around having to affirm inerrancy. The author of that fourth link, however, does not distinguish between “inerrant” and “infallible” except to say that in inerrancy is a “subset of infallibility.” Also, when the author points out that Scripture must be “interpreted according to the intended sense,” he is not allowing for a neo-orthodox loophole, but rather reminding us that our own interpretations of Scripture are not inerrant (since we are only fallible men and women).
Report comment to moderator
I understand what you are saying in your last post, Stephen, and I can’t really say I can provide you with the hard evidence you seek. I think it’s something you will trip over one day and say “OHHHHH!” I’m just glad you are seeking.
I can only offer that in the beginning was the Word (Christ). Christ is referred to as that Word in the Gospel of John. If you believe that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God — well, I guess it’s an A=B, B=C, so A=C sort of thing. If it’s “just” a history book to you, you won’t make the connection. I still think it comes down to “Who do you think I am?” If you take the Bible in its entirety, you are left with that question, in my humble opinion. And if you decide “yes, Jesus is Lord,” God being perfect, His Word is perfect (inerrant), too. I don’t think it’s large or deep. I just think at some point you will make a decision yes or no.
I used Paul as an example before. Something profound happened to him. Think about what it would take to make a man who was persecuting Christians to have that big “OHHHH” moment. It happened in an instant. He was fervent in his faith to the end. You can feel his intensity in what he writes. You can see the difference in Peter and the other disciples as well after the Resurrection. Their lives were never the same. What makes a humble, uneducated fisherman go to Rome the way Peter did? Christ said to Thomas it is better to believe without seeing, and when I put the “evidence” that these lives (as well as other lives throughout history) were changed in such a profound way, as I live longer and longer and personally test the truths in the Bible, see the changes in myself when I have my “OHHH” moments, I can make that leap of logic, that leap of faith, and can — and did — conclude that Jesus is who he said he is. And I do mean IS. Remember that we love God with all our heart and all our mind and all our soul. Don’t limit yourself to using just your mind. Use your heart and soul, too. Dare I say it: seek and you shall find.
Report comment to moderator
EYG, congratulations on your 20th anniversary today! As NJLawyer said, I hope this holiday season is not too difficult for your family. You’ve been in my prayers.
NJLawyer, any leads on a new job?
Kim, if you’re around, how’s your job search going?
Report comment to moderator
Also Kim, how did the meeting with your friend go?
And:
Happy Anniversary EYG!
I never did forget the anniversary, but I forgot her birthday twice. I should have learned the first time, but I’m really not very bright.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
The author of the fourth link does discuss some of the ways the word “infallibility” has been used, though he makes reference more to the Catholic use of the word than neo-orthodox. While my husband highly respects Barth, I don’t think he goes along with Barth’s view of Scripture. He would be fine with “inerrancy” as explained in that article – but as I say that’s not how I’ve typically heard inerrancy presented.
As I read the article, he was not only saying that our interpretations are subject to error, but that inerrancy does not mean that Scripture is necessarily accurate according to today’s typical expectations of accuracy in a historical narrative. As you have mentioned yourself, the writers of the Gospels do not put everything in strict chronological order, because that was not required by the literary standards of their day. And according to the writer of this article, it was apparently acceptable to portray Jesus saying what was actually a paraphrase of his own words. That was what surprised me, though I think it makes sense – and does not change the meaning of any passage of Scripture. Would you agree with that view, that words attributed to Jesus might not be the exact words he spoke, but words that captured the essence of what he said?
Report comment to moderator
TJ, I certainly would not state that limitations on interpretation are solely due to our lack of exhaustive knowledge — I believe it to be sufficient, but not exclusively so. Nor do I deny the noetic effects of sin (in fact I go further than most presuppositionalists since I don’t believe they’re mitigated by redemption), I only wanted to point out that our inability to access objective knowledge exists independently of sin.
You are of course correct that there are certain generally accepted meanings of words according to their common usage, but this can hardly result in an exact understanding. If you’re interested in studying the subject further, you can hardly do better than to read up on Quine. While he’s an analytic philosopher and hardly a theologian, I’ve personally found him quite widely applicable, though of course open to criticism.
NJL, you state that “If you believe that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God…”, but that begs the question by presuming precisely that which I have yet to find sufficient evidence for! There is absolutely no reason [that I have heard] that would justify why the Bible must necessarily be perfect simply because God is perfect.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen,
Then let’s work backward. Let’s agree that God is perfect. Why wouldn’t the Bible be perfect? If its purpose is to communicate to man, and God is perfect, and God gave us the Bible, wouldn’t He have made sure it is perfect? We humans cannot give perfect gifts; we aren’t human, and neither are human objects. But surely when God gives a gift (His Son, His Word), that gift can be perfect?
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I meant we aren’t perfect. I illustrated the point rather well, didn’t I?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, on what basis do you declare that the Bible’s “purpose is to communicate to man”?
Report comment to moderator
Haha. I didn’t even notice your second post!
Report comment to moderator
Um, Stephen, not sure how to answer that. What other possible purpose could it have? Writing to keep Himself from being bored? To practice His writing skills? If it’s from God, to us, then its purpose is communication. Right? If you gave an alternative possibility, I’m curious. (Though I probably won’t be back on here for the next couple days.)
Report comment to moderator
Right Cheryl, except that I’m not convinced that proper evidence has been given that it’s “from God to us”. It’s simply presumed.
Report comment to moderator
HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!
Report comment to moderator
Late BREAKING NEWS
China blocks USS Kitty Hawk carrier from Hong Kong
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2122835820071122?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
HONG KONG (Reuters) - China has refused permission for a U.S. aircraft carrier and accompanying vessels to visit Hong Kong for a long-planned Thanksgiving holiday visit, the U.S. State Department said on Wednesday.
Let’s remember them all in prayer, as one child said in the article “I miss my daddy,” said Mark Curry, 14, whose father is aboard one of the vessels. “We thought he was going to be there, but we don’t know what actually happened. I was just depressed.”
Report comment to moderator
75 – Here’s an update.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, I am glad you clarified about your husband and Barth. However, my point still stands about those who will use “infallible” as an end run around “inerrant.” I would much rather you say that your husband has distanced himself from the likes of Jack Rogers! Seriously, though, I know little about Donald McKim, but there is little doubt in my mind that Jack Rogers has apostatized from the Christian faith. I hope I am wrong on that and he is brought to repentance. He has done much to damage your denomination.
I would agree that the gospels are often not chronological in nature (neither are some of the historical events recorded in the epistles, with Galatians 2 being a strong possibility; I would argue that Acts is chronologically driven, however) but are thematically arranged in several cases (though they are, to some degree, chronological on a broad scale — the birth narratives are at the beginning and the death, burial, and resurrection are at the end!), particularly in Matthew’s gospel. This was a common writing method of the day, and it is silly to insist they confirm to modern Western literary standards. On the other hand, this is a far cry from saying they are not historically accurate (which I know is not what you are saying).
As far as the sayings of Jesus go, in some cases He may have spoken on a particular subject on more than one occasion (I have done this, of course), so there may different wordings because of this. Other times, some of the sayings are summarized (the Sermon on the Mount takes about 10 minutes to read; my own sermons are 3x that, and I’m pretty Jesus would have spoken for longer!). In other occasions, the gospel writers might use different words for theological emphasis in recording the written details in an account (such as recording synonymous words for “Lord” in some of the accounts). Inspiration (and this was our author’s point) does not hinge on any of these things. What is important (which is what I believe you are saying) is that the words of Jesus, the historical narratives, etc. are faithfully recorded (theologically, historically, etc.). Furthermore, the doctrine of inspiration is meant to extend to the documents themselves (i.e., that the Holy Spirit guided the NT authors in the events, word choice, etc.) that they recorded. I am oversimplifying this, of course, but that is the general gist.
To use a somewhat modern analogy: if I read a biography of Abraham Lincoln (or even a combination of biographies), I would not expect that bio to record ever single word that Lincoln uttered during his life or every event he lived through. Even if the bio did not include every word he uttered at the Gettysburg Address, that would not mean I thought it to be inaccurate or “untruthful.” If we do not expect this from literature in our time, I’m sure you would agree that it is an unreasonable expectation for literature 2000 years ago. And this is not taking into account the supernatural aspects of preservation, etc. with the NT documents.
Report comment to moderator
TJ,
My husband certainly is dismayed with the direction Jack Rogers has gone in recent years. From what I remember, discussions of Rogers have primarily been on the subject of homosexuality, and Rogers’ change of heart regarding it, so that he supports ordaining non-celibate homosexuals. To support his position, of course, Rogers has to change how he approaches Scripture, though I don’t know details of his current teaching on it.
The difficulty of the approach to Scripture that emphasizes “the point the writer was making” is determining what the point was. I think we agree that paraphrasing Jesus’ words does not change their basic meaning, nor does rearranging the order of event. But someone – such as Rogers – could suggest that Paul’s point in Romans 1 is to show how sin has corrupted everyone, not to teach that homosexuality is a sin.
That doesn’t mean that approach to Scripture is wrong – just that it can easily be misused. I was just reading today through part of Exodus, about the plagues in Egypt, and thinking how it’s hard for us today not to see God as having been unfair to the average Egyptian, who wasn’t responsible for the Pharaoh’s actions (after all, even Pharaoh’s advisers started telling him to let the Israelites go, but Pharaoh didn’t listen to them). What made the average Israelite any better than the average Egyptian?
At which point I remembered that the answer was “nothing,” and turned to the section in Deuteronomy where the people are told to remember that they’re not being given the land of Canaan because of their own righteousness, but because of the wickedness of the Canaanites. Which still doesn’t make the story of the slaughter of whole communities any easier to read, and it’s tempting to say that “the point the writer is making” is about God’s faithfulness to his people, and that what happened to other people in the process is just recording history, not necessarily what God really wanted to happen. But the text doesn’t seem to really leave that option open, no matter how much I might like it to.
Report comment to moderator
You are correct, Pauline. From one perspective, there is no difference (ontologically, we might say) between the Israelites and the pagans around them. The only difference is that God set His faithful love upon one and not the other. Did God behave unjustly in either case? Absolutely not, unless one has a low and twisted view of sin and rebellion against God. To put it another way, the Egyptians and Canaanites got what we all deserve: justice. The Israelites received mercy (btw, the unrepentant Israelites got justice too!). It is only if one makes “demands” of God and attempts to hold God to some arbitrary, anthropocentric, antonymous standard that we become critical of God. That sets us as the judges, which we have no right to be, and pretends that we have suddenly become wiser than God.
The only one in human history who did not get “justice” was the Son of God Himself, who had our sins imputed to Him. He is the only One who had any right to complain, and yet He willingly went to the cross for our salvation (so that God can be both just and justifier, Paul would say). At the cross we see both the justice of God and the mercy of God. Those who reject the cross get what they deserved anyway, and those who come to Christ get what they never deserved, but rather what God freely provides.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!