Personal view of Bible

Difflugia wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 11:42 pm

otseng wrote: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:13 amAnd I’m still on this road. One reason I created this thread is to go deeper on this path by debating others about this.

To actually address what this thread is about, I’m curious how much of your view of Scripture you’ve worked out. What about the Bible do you think God has preserved?

Not sure what you mean how much I’ve worked out. But, like I said, I’m on a journey and far from completing the path.

I don’t think a fallible Bible is compatible with any sort of biblical authority.

Many people have this viewpoint, including many very smart people, both Christians and non-Christians. I realize my viewpoint is in an extreme minority, but I think my position is a reasonable position.

A major part of the problem is definitions and terminology. In this thread, I have not mentioned the terms fallible or infallible. Rather, I’m talking about inerrancy, and even more specifically inerrancy as defined by the Chicago statement. If we can address the issue of compatibility of authority while not being inerrant, then can address other issues such as infallibility.

According to the Chicago statement, inerrancy of scripture technically only applies to the autographs. It does not apply to any of our translations (or to any original language manuscript). And even what constitutes an autograph is not so clear. Since we do not have any of the autographs or even know what autographs refers to, what does it really mean to believe in inerrancy?

How did you arrive at these particular doctrinal conclusions if the Bible might not be inerrant?

Fundamentally, by choosing to believe in it. Yes, I know it’s not an intellectually satisfying answer. But, perhaps later can get into more details about this.

The main reason often given for a literal Flood and Garden of Eden are that Jesus mentioned both of them.

Actually, I believe in a literal worldwide flood because empirical evidence points to it. I’ve debated this in several threads in S&R and never referred to Jesus’s words as evidence.

Why isn’t it possible (or even probable) that those were allegorical

Sure, it’s possible the flood and Adam and Eve are allegorical. I have no problem with people believing that. Though personally I believe in a literal worldwide flood and a literal first human couple that were supernaturally created.

I guess I’m trying to find out what you think the Bible is. What kind of errors or mistakes do you think God has allowed into and about the Bible and what has God prevented?

I believe the Bible is a work written by humans with God involved through secondary causation and not primary causation. God used fallible people with their skills, intellect, personalities, weaknesses, limited memory to write down things. God did not create the Bible so that it’ll be defect free and everything to be factually correct. The Bible is meant to learn about God, how to have a relationship with God, how to live, etc. It is the absolute standard for Christian doctrine and life. It is how we learn what God is like and how to love God. It is our comfort, hope and inspiration for life.

The model I currently view the Bible is like the sun. It has a core, but as you go farther out, it becomes less defined. It is not something that can be defined with clear boundaries. It is not like a rock where you can say this is part of the rock and not part of a rock. Like the sun is central to the solar system, it is central to the Christian faith and gives life and light. But, it is not something to be worshipped like we should not worship the sun.