Biblical Exegesis & Hermeneutics

PDN

An Irenic post, open to Christians, atheiests, agnostics or anyone else who wishes to respond.

As a fairly new poster on this board I've noticed that certain 'flashpoints' seem to create a lot more heat than light in discussions here. One of these is when posters accuse one another of misinterpreting the Bible, or quoting verses out of context. Then the response is, "Well, why should your interpretation be any more correct than anyone else's".

The fact is that academics, both Christian and non-Christian, have developed very workable principles for interpreting ancient literature, particularly that of the Middle East and Near East. For example, if a Christian was debating with an agnostic in a theology class in any respectable university, they may well disagree on many issues, but they work within mutually respected guidelines and principles of exegesis. They both accept, for example, that trying to find hidden doctrines by calculating the hidden numerical values of the letters of each word, or treating incidentals in a parable as if they were prescriptive teaching, such practices violate everything that scholars know about ancient literary forms.

Now, if I was to log on to a board devoted to the discussion of football and write posts that indicated I hadn't the faintest idea how the offside rule or the Bosman rule works, then I imagine those more knowledgable would soon get irritated at me. I have, on this board, responded sharply (and regretted it afterwards) when another poster displayed a total disregard for basic principles of exegesis. As one who lectures on this subject at post-graduate level, I responded as I would if one of my students ignored a cardinal rule of literary understanding. Now, that is no excuse for me being disrespectful to someone, but surely if we want to discuss the Bible then it would make sense to learn a little bit about how to understand the Bible, or indeed any ancient literary document?

I would recommend a book called "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" by Gordon Fee. You can get it through ebay or Amazon fairly easy, or through most bookshops. Yes, Gordon Fee, is a Christian. No, that doesn't mean he's just developed a system of interpretation that will validate his beliefs. He has taken the key principles used in understanding what ancient literature would have meant to its original readers, and he explains them in a way that the average layman can easily understand. His aim in writing the book was to help bring sanity to debates among Christians, where those holding different viewpoints are often guilty of trying to use the Bible to find texts that support their beliefs, instead of trying to understand what the Bible actually says.

Please take this post in the spirit in which it is written. If we all learned and followed standard hermeneutical principles then we could have some really great, and challenging, discussions. Atheists and agnostics, if they used the Bible in a manner consistent with academic standards, might well get some of us Christians to look at some of the more problematic aspects of our faith. But simply to start quoting Scripture wildly out of its literary context will convince no-one - it's just like shouting "Yah! Boo!" at someone in a debate. Or, it would be like those Christians who try to disrupt a scientific debate by spouting a lot of pseudo-science.

Asiaprod

Nice post PDN

bonkey

PDN wrote:

Then the response is, "Well, why should your interpretation be any more correct than anyone else's".

While it may be a poorly put question, the underlying assumption often being questioned is how differing groups of Christians can come to differing understanding of the same text.

Unless all bar one are made using unacceptable methodologies, this issue still remains. If more than one interpretation is derived according to the appropriate frameworks and standards, then how does one choose between them?

Is it - like religion itself - a matter of faith? Is it a matter of choosing which "feels" right to you? Is it a matter of being inspired (presumably by the Holy Spirit) into believing one over another?

But simply to start quoting Scripture wildly out of its literary context will convince no-one

In general, I agree completely, and often wince at some of the quotes thrown about. Perhaps we don't wince at the same ones all the time, but at heart I agree with the fundamental argument you're making here.

However...it doesn't completely rule out the validity of the type of question you seem to be taking issue with. Lets take the long-running thread regarding the account of creation in Genesis. There are two main schools of Christian opinion on this (unless one applies a more restrictive definition of Christian to remove those who do not share one's own perspective) which is that it is either allegorical or literal.

If these are not both valid perspectives, is it the atheists' or agnostics' fault that they seek to understand why the Catholic church adopts one stance (allegorical), whilst many here adopt another (lliteral)? Are we at fault for asking the reasons that either side has used to reach their conclusions? Or would this be an example of a "what makes you so sure of your interpretation" question that you don't have an issue with?

If the understanding of the account of creation can only be validly taken one way, then surely the response should be that the other interpretations are de facto invalid because they are based on practices agreed to be unacceptable - that the proponents of such interpretations are being intellectually dishonest or evangelising from a position of ignorance.

If, on the other hand, the understanding can be taken either way, then the question of how a believer has chosen one interpretation over the other must surely be valid?

philologos

I'd be very interested in what this book has to say. Although if one really couldn't interpret it they could get a Bible commentary.

BrianCalgary

bonkey wrote:

While it may be a poorly put question, the underlying assumption often being questioned is how differing groups of Christians can come to differing understanding of the same text.

Unless all bar one are made using unacceptable methodologies, this issue still remains. If more than one interpretation is derived according to the appropriate frameworks and standards, then how does one choose between them?

Is it - like religion itself - a matter of faith? Is it a matter of choosing which "feels" right to you? Is it a matter of being inspired (presumably by the Holy Spirit) into believing one over another??

I think what happens bonkey is that the Bible speaks to people differently to people with differing circumstances. One of my favourites is the use of alcohol. We debate that one in our churches on occasion. As a teacher I have my bunch of verses that are Ok with my desire to enjoy a pint every now and then. I would the ask the 'no alcohol' person what verses they use to show their behaviour, we then can have a debate on it. I have never really debated this issue with someone BTW.

One of the areas that has to be exained in the disussion and the utiliasation of any verse is; who wrote it, who did they write it to, and what where the issues being addressed?

Knowing and understanding the above sheds light on the message being conveyed and intended.

bonkey wrote:

In general, I agree completely, and often wince at some of the quotes thrown about. Perhaps we don't wince at the same ones all the time, but at heart I agree with the fundamental argument you're making here.

However...it doesn't completely rule out the validity of the type of question you seem to be taking issue with. Lets take the long-running thread regarding the account of creation in Genesis. There are two main schools of Christian opinion on this (unless one applies a more restrictive definition of Christian to remove those who do not share one's own perspective) which is that it is either allegorical or literal.

If these are not both valid perspectives, is it the atheists' or agnostics' fault that they seek to understand why the Catholic church adopts one stance (allegorical), whilst many here adopt another (lliteral)? Are we at fault for asking the reasons that either side has used to reach their conclusions? Or would this be an example of a "what makes you so sure of your interpretation" question that you don't have an issue with?

If the understanding of the account of creation can only be validly taken one way, then surely the response should be that the other interpretations are de facto invalid because they are based on practices agreed to be unacceptable - that the proponents of such interpretations are being intellectually dishonest or evangelising from a position of ignorance.

If, on the other hand, the understanding can be taken either way, then the question of how a believer has chosen one interpretation over the other must surely be valid?

On this issue of creation, as you know I am a 6 day creation person. The earth was created between 12 and 15,000 years ago. Adam is referred to 8 times in the NT, I have to then conclude that he actually existed.

I am therefore going to read the first few chapters of Genesis as being historical.

If someone reads it differently for their reasons, I am not going to condemn them for that understanding as they can still know Jesus as Lord and saviour.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

Please take this post in the spirit in which it is written. If we all learned and followed standard hermeneutical principles then we could have some really great, and challenging, discussions.

And there is no reason why any one of us should not reserve the right to reject any given hermeneutic or hermeneutical principle pertaining to the Bible. You seem to imply that there is an unshakable consensus covering all aspects of exegesis, when there isn't. And, of course, Hermeneutics and Biblical Hermeneutics are two different things. Biblical Hermeneutics has been developed, as you say, by Christians for Christians. A non-christian may reject many of its precepts.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

And there is no reason why any one of us should not reserve the right to reject any given hermeneutic or hermeneutical principle pertaining to the Bible. You seem to imply that there is an unshakable consensus covering all aspects of exegesis, when there isn't. And, of course, Hermeneutics and Biblical Hermeneutics are two different things. Biblical Hermeneutics has been developed, as you say, by Christians for Christians. A non-christian may reject many of its precepts.

Quite untrue here Sapien. Hermeneutical principle are pretty well accepted across the board by scholars.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

Biblical Hermeneutics has been developed, as you say, by Christians for Christians. A non-christian may reject many of its precepts.

Actually that's not what I said at all. Which goes to show, I guess, that people will continue to read what they want to into anything that is written or spoken.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Quite untrue here Sapien. Hermeneutical principle are pretty well accepted across the board by scholars.

As I said, Brian, Biblical Hermeneutics is a specific sub-realm of Hermeneutics. It is largely concerned with perfecting a Christian interpretation of the Bible. It is predicated on a number of axioms that the non-religious can freely reject.

And, in the interest of epistemological rigour, any principle, no matter how widely accepted, can be challenged and, with sufficiently good reason, rejected. This is particularly true of Hermeneutics, which is properly an approach, as opposed to a system of laws.

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

As I said, Brian, Biblical Hermeneutics is a specific sub-realm of Hermeneutics. .

Please explain then Hermeneutics how you see it carried out.

Sapien wrote:

It is largely concerned with perfecting a Christian interpretation of the Bible. It is predicated on a number of axioms that the non-religious can freely reject. .

It is largely concerned with discovering what the writers intended to write and their understanding of whatthey did write.

Sapien wrote:

And, in the interest of epistemological rigour, any principle, no matter how widely accepted, can be challenged and, with sufficiently good reason, rejected. This is particularly true of Hermeneutics, which is properly an approach, as opposed to a system of laws.

I accept this.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

Actually that's not what I said at all. Which goes to show, I guess, that people will continue to read what they want to into anything that is written or spoken.

Apologies. I was remembering this:

PDN wrote:

]His aim in writing the book was to help bring sanity to debates among Christians...

Nevertheless, if you have not said it, I will. Biblical Hermeneutics is only putatively sound for Christians.

Sapien

BrianCalgary wrote:

Please explain then Hermeneutics how you see it carried out.

I'm not sure what you mean. I presume you want something other than a definition. Are you disputing that there is a difference between the Hermeneutics applied to the Bible and Hermeneutics in general?

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is largely concerned with discovering what the writers intended to write and their understanding of whatthey did write.

A good definition of Hermeneutics in general. However, Biblical hermeneutics often work from the presumption that the author, ultimately, is God. This is something the non-religious will tend to reject. Biblical hermeneutics tend to be based on the assumption that the Bible is an organic, single text, and that a coherent interpretation that resolves all internal contradictions must always be possible. The non-religious often see the Bible as a collection, or rather, a redaction of many discrete texts, written in different cultural environments, with fundamentally different conceptions of the nature of God and the universe. In other words, the religious assume that a single hermeneutic must exist that adequately deals with the entire Bible - though this may be a complex hermeneutic allowing for divers genres and styles - whereas the non-religious have no reason to believe that there is a single, valid Biblical hermeneutic.

PDN

To clarify, biblical hermeneutics as a discipline is divided into two main activities:
a) Exegesis. Discovering what any text meant 'there and then'. How would the original readers/hearers have understood a passage from the Bible, or indeed from any other ancient piece of literature?
b) Hermeneutics. Having established the exegesis of a biblical text, how are we supposed to apply this in the 'here and now'?

Exegesis operates on the same set of principles whether you are studying Genesis, Luke's Gospel or Homer's Odyssey. This is recognised by scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike) in the fields of Theology, Ancient History and Classical Literature. If Christians or atheists alike wish to participate in debates and be taken seriously then they can't just drive a coach and horses through accepted scholarly principles of exegesis. Christian exegesis does not differ at all from non-Christian exegesis.

Hermeneutics, in its sense of interpreting the Bible for our lives today, is by definition a dscipline developed by believers for believers. Differing methods are used by different types of Christians. For example, Christians who believe that the Bible is verbally inspired and therefore inerrant (I number myself among this group) operate on a principle that you should not interpret one passage of the Bible in a way that contradicts another, but should seek for an interpretation that is consistent with our understanding of the nature of Scripture. However, such an alternative interpretation must never violate basic principles of exegesis. (Any Science fiction buffs who remember Asimov's three rules of robotics will readily understand the concept that an evangelical's method of interpretation must always be subordinate to accepted scholarly exegesis).

Now, of course Sapiens or any other poster should feel absolutely free to ignore any hermeneutical principle designed by Christians for the application of the Bible to today's culture. I would not expect any atheist, or indeed anyone other than a fellow evangelical and inerrantist, to follow the principle of no contradiction in Scripture.

However, what will torpedo sensible discussion faster than anything is when people indulge in eisegesis - that is when we read our ideas into a text rather than trying to understand what a text is actually saying. For example, when a Christian tries to read his doctrine of the Trinity into the fact that the Hebrew word for God (elohim) is plural. In fact, scholars have long ago determined that this is a royal plural (as when the Queen of England uses the royal 'we' when she's only talking about herself). So any Christian citing the plurality of elohim as evidence that the Old Testament teaches the Trinity is engaging in eisegesis (they are also theologically confused since the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one, not plural at all). Another example of eisegesis is when an atheist seizes on a detail in a parable (when Christian and non-Christian scholars alike agree that a parable teaches one main moral point and that the other details are not necessarily endorsing the morality or otherwise of such actions) and insists that the parable is proving what they already believe to be true - that Christianity is a bad religion that endorses slavery or violence.

As a pastor I train and encourage my congregants to practice sound exegesis. Indeed, there are times they will call me out and rebuke me because I quoted a Scripture out of context. And I'm very glad that they are biblically literate enough to do that.

Sorry this post is so long. I hope it helps.

PDN

I should add that it would technically be incorrect to say that all professing Christians agree on basic exegetical principles. Tiny groups of extremists like Fred Phelps' people would argue that we are using Satan's tools by drawing on insights from archeology, classical literature, study of ancient languages etc.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

For example, when a Christian tries to read his doctrine of the Trinity into the fact that the Hebrew word for God (elohim) is plural. In fact, scholars have long ago determined that this is a royal plural (as when the Queen of England uses the royal 'we' when she's only talking about herself).

Now, now! I don't know who these scholars to whom you refer are, but that issue is by no means so simple to deal with. There is also the theory that elohim refers to a polytheistic multitude of powers - or the "Divine Assembly," as some exegesis has it. In fact, I believe that this is a very common interpretation - considered mainstream among secular scholars.

Would this be an example of eisegesis by omission, PDN?

PDN

Sapien wrote:

Now, now! I don't know who these scholars to whom you refer are, but that issue is by no means so simple to deal with. There is also the theory that elohim refers to a polytheistic multitude of powers - or the "Divine Assembly," as some exegesis has it. In fact, I believe that this is a very common interpretation - considered mainstream among secular scholars.

Would this be an example of eisegesis by omission, PDN?

Now, this is precisely why exegesis can be so much fun! If you want to start a new thread on that (purely so this thread doesn't end up down a rabbit trail), I will gladly discuss it more with you, not to try to prove that my faith or your's is correct, nor to rip anything out of context, but to try to determine what the original readers of Genesis would have understood elohim to mean. And if I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

And if I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it.

You're wrong about "scholars" "determining" that elohim is a royal plural. That's all I'm after for now. To salvage the spirit of your lesson on the pitfalls of eisegesis, you understand.

Sapien

PDN

Sapien wrote:

You're wrong about "scholars" "determining" that elohim is a royal plural. That's all I'm after for now. To salvage the spirit of your lesson on the pitfalls of eisegesis, you understand.

Well, it's too late to start looking that one up - so I'll happily concede that was a poor choice of illustration. But I think you get the point anyway.

Sapien

What meta-exegetical logic leads you to inerrantism?

PDN

Sapien wrote:

What meta-exegetical logic leads you to inerrantism?

The foundation of my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is initially faith, not logic.

My starting point was experience, the fact that God touched me and changed my life. Then I obviously wanted to find out more about who God was and what He wanted from me, so (not coming from a Christian background or knowing anything about the Bible) I gave it a quick read from Genesis to Revelation. That convinced me that there is a unity to the Bible. Even though it was written by many authors over centuries, I could detect evidence of a common authorship.

So how did I get from there to inerrancy? For philosophical and logical reasons.

1. If there is a God who is holy, and who wants people to follow His commands, then those commands need to be in an objective revelation. A revelation that is only partially inspired is subjective. People will cherry pick which parts apply to them and ignore whatever is inconvenient.

2. Your word is an expression of who you are. If I said, "Sapiens is an honest guy, but I wouldn't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth" then I would not just be insulting your words, I would be insulting you. Therefore if the Bible claims to be "the Word of the Lord" then it is reasonable to expect perfection in that Word.

3. The Bible itself, in several places, claims to be perfect. Now at first glance this appears to be a circular argument - "The Bible is in errant because the Bible claims to be inerrant". But that would be an over simplification. If the Bible claims to be perfect, but is in fact not, then the Bible is in error in something as fundamental as its own nature. Therefore, if the Bible is not perfect then it is pretty well useless. (This is a variation of CS Lewis' famous point that a man who claimed to be the Son of God would be either a liar or a lunatic if he was wrong, would indeed be the Son of God if he was right, but by no stretch of the imagination could he be wrong about something so important and still be viewed as a 'great moral teacher').

Now, this line of reasoning, together with 26 years of reading the Bible cover to cover, causes me to come to the logical conclusion that the Bible is fully inspired by God, and therefore inerrant. So, although I did not reach an inerrantist position by logic alone, that is not to say that my position is illogical.

Now of course you will not share my position if you do not accept the following faith propositions which are primarily experiential rather than deductive:
1. An omnipotent, omniscient and holy God exists.
2. The 66 books of the Bible form a unified whole.
3. The Bible is a revelation of God to man.
Some of you will find these faith propositions outrageous or laughable. That is your perogative, just as I probably would find some of your beliefs to be a bit loopy. They are unproveable by logic alone. This may have been what the Pope was trying to say recently about the historical basis of the Christian faith - but he has to express himself in vague and convoluted forms in case some crazies misinterpret his words and burn effigies and kill nuns in their outrage at being called a violent religion.

However, once you accept these faith propositions, then it is incumbent upon Christians to give a reason for the hope that is within them. In other words, we should be able to demonstrate that our beliefs are coherent and self-consistent - but that is very different from saying that you can get there by logic alone.

bonkey

PDN wrote:

2. The 66 books of the Bible form a unified whole.

I'm curious on this issue.

The Catholic Christian bible contains the same 66 books and an additional 7, yielding a total of 73.

Given that Protestantism arose from a split with Catholicism, does this suggest the true bible did not exist prior to the schism which produced Protestantism?

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

To clarify, biblical hermeneutics as a discipline is divided into two main activities:
a) Exegesis. Discovering what any text meant 'there and then'. How would the original readers/hearers have understood a passage from the Bible, or indeed from any other ancient piece of literature?
b) Hermeneutics. Having established the exegesis of a biblical text, how are we supposed to apply this in the 'here and now'?

Apologies if I'm being a bit slow - does this basically mean that using this kind of scholarly approach is inconsistent with the view that Genesis is a factual account of creation. I'm sort of assuming that a scholarly approach would suggest that loads of people have creation myths and Genesis is just one of them.

robindch

PDN wrote:

The foundation of my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is initially faith, not logic. [...] 26 years of reading the Bible cover to cover, causes me to come to the logical conclusion that the Bible is fully inspired by God

So, let me get this straight: you start off by thinking that it's impossible that anything in the bible might be wrong, then after 26 years, you positively conclude that it's impossible that the bible might be wrong.

If I've got this right, do you see why some people could think that this line of reasoning is suspect?

PDN

bonkey wrote:

I'm curious on this issue.

The Catholic Christian bible contains the same 66 books and an additional 7, yielding a total of 73.

Given that Protestantism arose from a split with Catholicism, does this suggest the true bible did not exist prior to the schism which produced Protestantism?

The Bible contains the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament.

The Scriptures (ie our Old Testament) that Jesus used and endorsed contained 39 books. This was because the Jews believed the canon of Scripture to have been closed 400 years before Christ. There was a Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, that circulated among the Jewish diaspora outside of Palestine. Some copies of the Septuagint, particularly in Alexandria, also included the books you mention, known variously as the apocryphal, deuterocanonical or intertestamental books.

The Christian Church, from its earliest days, accepted the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures as Scripture. The apocryphal books were rejected because
a) they were written in Greek, so were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures;
b) they were not accepted by Palestinian Judaism at any time, so they were not included in the Scriptures that Jesus read and endorsed.
c) when Judaism was scattered following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, the Jews rejected the apocryphal books - allegedly at the Council of Jamnia in 90AD (but there is some historical dispute over this last detail).

The Early Church also fairly quickly recognised the 27 books of the New Testament as inspired and therefore canonical. Of course the apocrypha were not included in the New Testament canon since they were written prior to the birth of Christ and so were neither Christian, nor part of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Nevertheless some Christians continued to use the Septuagint and so the apocryphal books you mention were included in Jerome's latin translation, the Vulgate, around 400AD, but in a separate section from the canonical books.

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognise the apocryphal books as part of the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent in 1546, 29 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg - widely viewed as marking the beginning of the Reformation (or 'schism').

So the true Bible did exist prior to the Reformation. The canonisation of the apocrypha, along with papal infallibility, the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary are all post-Reformation additions to Catholicism.

PDN

robindch wrote:

So, let me get this straight: you start off by thinking that it's impossible that anything in the bible might be wrong, then after 26 years, you positively conclude that it's impossible that the bible might be wrong.

If I've got this right, do you see why some people could think that this line of reasoning is suspect?

Ommitting a large portion of my post and putting a few dots in its place certainly alters the meaning of what someone said, doesn't it? I don't think any reasonable person who reads my post carefully would come up with such a distortion.

What I said was my belief in inerrancy starts by faith - not faith in inerrancy itself but faith in God's existence & faith that the Bible is, in some shape or form, a revelation of God to man. Then an initial reading of the Bible convinced me that it is a unified whole. Then, for the philosophical and logical reasons I have already given I came to believe that the Bible is inerrant. A further 26 years of reading and studying the Bible have confirmed that belief.

You have a perfect right to disagree with my steps of faith, or indeed with my conclusions, but misrepresenting my argument is really not on. I am trusting you were simply hurried or careless in reading my post, which I have just reread and I think it's fairly clear, and that you would not deliberately distort what somebody said.

robindch

Apologies -- I don't want to distort what you have said, or appear to distort what you have said, but rather to boil it down to its epistemological foundation, so that I can understand exactly how you arrive to where you are now. On re-reading the message, what I should have written the following (change in bold)

robindch wrote:

So, let me get this straight: you start off by thinking that the bible is accurate, then after 26 years, you positively conclude that it's impossible that the bible might be wrong.

Is this an accurate summary of the framework of your belief?

.

PDN

Schuhart wrote:

Apologies if I'm being a bit slow - does this basically mean that using this kind of scholarly approach is inconsistent with the view that Genesis is a factual account of creation. I'm sort of assuming that a scholarly approach would suggest that loads of people have creation myths and Genesis is just one of them.

A scholarly approach would try to start off by asking, "How would the original readers/hearers of Genesis have understood the account of Creation?" That is a valid point of debate. A minority (a fairly large minority, but still a minority) of scholars contend that the original readers/hearers would have understood that this was a myth. A majority, however, would think it more likely that the original hearers/readers would have understood this as a literal account. (Note that this has no bearing, for now, on whether the creation account is actually true. For example, scholars may well come to an objective conclusion that the author of Genesis intended it to be taken literally, that the original audience would have taken it literally, but that they were deluded because of their lack of scientific knowledge).

So, exegesis deals primarily with what the Bible (or any other text) says, and how it would have been understood by its original audience. In fact you could do exactly the same kind of exegesis with the Epic of Gilgamesh and try to determine whether its author and audience would have understood it as a factual account or as a myth. This shows that exegesis is an objective academic discipline, just like history, and that there should be no such thing as 'Christian' exegesis, because the same principles apply to all exegetes.

Now, your question goes beyond the objective discipline of exegesis and carries over into how we evaluate truth claims - a much more subjective area of study. So, a scholarly approach might suggest several possible conclusions:
a) Your conclusion, that "loads of people have creation myths and Genesis is just one of them".
b) The conclusion that all those creation myths originated from one factual account (the Genesis account) and became garbled and embellished as mankind was fruitful and spread out and filled the earth.
c) The conclusion that the existence of creation myths in various cultures has no bearing on the truthfulness or otherwise of the Genesis account. So, for example, there are plenty of myths where tyrants overreach themselves in military campaigns, but it does not logically follow that an account of Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union was therefore a myth.
You will readily see that we have now moved beyond the objective realm of exegesis into a much more subjective area of debate, where our presuppositions are much more likely to influence our conclusions.

I would add that the fact that there is disagreement over the correct exegesis of the Genesis creation account (was it meant to be taken literally or not?) highlights another issue. The further back we go in time, the less consensus you will find among scholars. This is because we have ledd objective data upon which to form conclusions. For example, when we apply exegesis to the parables of Jesus we have many other extra-biblical examples of parables with which to compare them, but the Gensis account is much further off and there is much less contemporary material to work with.

So, the short answer is that a scholarly approach to exegesis is not necessarily inconsistent with taking the Genesis account of creation literally.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Apologies -- I don't want to distort what you have said, or appear to distort what you have said, but rather to boil it down to its epistemological foundation, so that I can understand exactly how you arrive to where you are now. On re-reading the message, what I should have written the following (change in bold) So, let me get this straight: you start off by thinking that the bible is accurate, then after 26 years, you positively conclude that it's impossible that the bible might be wrong.
Is this an accurate summary of the framework of your belief?

.

No, it is not.

I started off by believing that the Bible was a revelation of God to man (that does not imply any conclusion as to how accurate I thought it to be - I had no idea about that because I had never read it).

Then, after my first reading, and subsequent reflection, (it's a big book, so this took a few of months) I came to conclude, on logical and philosophical grounds, that the Bible was either without error, or else hopelessly unusable as a revelation of God to man. Incidentally, this was not a conclusion I wanted to reach. I would have preferred to have been able to cherry pick the bits that would fit in with my desires, worldview and pre-existing opinions.

Now I can say that 26 years of reading the Bible has only served to convince me that my original conclusions were correct.

I hope that clarifies things.

robindch

It doesn't clear things up completely.

I can certainly understand how you came to the possible conclusion that the bible is largely unusable as an accurate source of information -- I hold much the same view myself.

But I can't understand imagine any logical or philosophical grounds upon which one can suspect, then positively conclude, that either the bible (or more accurately, your own specific interpretation of it) is completely error-free. Can you outline these logical grounds in greater detail?

PDN

robindch wrote:

It doesn't clear things up completely.

I can certainly understand how you came to the possible conclusion that the bible is largely unusable as an accurate source of information -- I hold much the same view myself.

But I can't understand imagine any logical or philosophical grounds upon which one can suspect, then positively conclude, that either the bible (or more accurately, your own specific interpretation of it) is completely error-free. Can you outline these logical grounds in greater detail?

I've already cited them, at length, in an earlier post.

robindch

Yes, I've already read the earlier post. But your third point does not explain how you can move from a position of "if the Bible is not perfect then it is pretty well useless" (which is a suspicious logical proposition in itself), to "the bible contains no errors". This is the crucial logical step which I am failing to understand and I don't believe that you haven't explained it adequately yet.

Fanny Cradock

Very well reasoned posts, PDN. I would gather that this is an area that you have given more than a casual thought or two over the years! Up until it was mentioned, I've never encountered hermeneutics (I can hardly pronounce it) and I wonder could you list the names of a few (introductory) titles dealing with biblical hermeneutics? Thanks

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So how did I get from there to inerrancy? For philosophical and logical reasons.

Putting on my "Pretend I'm a Christian" hat, there are a few flaws in your reasoning that I figured I would just point out for you to consider.

Firstly, the idea that the Bible must completely revelation conflicts with the idea of free will.

God can inspire the Bible, but he cannot make those who record his inspiration record this accurately. It is entirely logical within this assumption that parts of the Bible will be recorded correct and parts of the Bible will not be recorded correctly, since God would probably not force the Bible to be recorded correct as this would violate the concept of free will.

Secondly if the above is true then it is to be expected that the Bible will be in error of its own nature, but of course those who wrote the Bible will not fully realise this. Claims that the Bible is perfect are to be expected, even if they are not true. The claim that it is useless doesn't hold though, as this does not stop it being inspired by God. It is a flawed document from God, but it is a document from God none the less.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that if the Bible is inspired by God then it must be a perfect recording of this inspiration because God would not allow otherwise. That doesn't hold as a logical argument within the context of free will. The Bible can be inspired by God while not being a perfect recording of this inspiration because the Bible is a product of men, and God does not interfere with how we structure our faith. If he did everyone would be a Christian and everyone would worship the exact same thing. But that would violate free will.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Yes, I've already read the earlier post. But your third point does not explain how you can move from a position of "if the Bible is not perfect then it is pretty well useless" (which is a suspicious logical proposition in itself), to "the bible contains no errors". This is the crucial logical step which I am failing to understand and I don't believe that you haven't explained it adequately yet.

OK, let's try again. The Bible claims to be perfect. If it contained errors then it would not be perfect. Therefore the Bible claims to be inerrant.

If the Bible is a book that claims to be inerrant, but in fact is wrong in that most fundamental claim, then it is a book that claims authority on a deceitful basis - or, to put it bluntly, a fraud. To use a deceitful book as a moral guide is illogical to me.

Of course, without my initial faith propositions, logic may take you in a different direction. For example, if you don't believe that the 66 books of the Bible form a unified whole, then you may choose to reject the Bible's claims to perfection & inerrancy while accepting its claims in other areas.

Does that help?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Putting on my "Pretend I'm a Christian" hat, there are a few flaws in your reasoning that I figured I would just point out for you to consider.

Firstly, the idea that the Bible must completely revelation conflicts with the idea of free will.

God can inspire the Bible, but he cannot make those who record his inspiration record this accurately. It is entirely logical within this assumption that parts of the Bible will be recorded correct and parts of the Bible will not be recorded correctly, since God would probably not force the Bible to be recorded correct as this would violate the concept of free will.

Secondly if the above is true then it is to be expected that the Bible will be in error of its own nature, but of course those who wrote the Bible will not fully realise this. Claims that the Bible is perfect are to be expected, even if they are not true. The claim that it is useless doesn't hold though, as this does not stop it being inspired by God. It is a flawed document from God, but it is a document from God none the less.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that if the Bible is inspired by God then it must be a perfect recording of this inspiration because God would not allow otherwise. That doesn't hold as a logical argument within the context of free will. The Bible can be inspired by God while not being a perfect recording of this inspiration because the Bible is a product of men, and God does not interfere with how we structure our faith. If he did everyone would be a Christian and everyone would worship the exact same thing. But that would violate free will.

Not so. Your post makes the false assumption that inspiration must either be mechanical dictation or else error-strewn human reasoning. If you have put your Christian hat on long enough to allow that God is omnipotent and omniscient, then there is nothing to prevent you from also believing that God was able to superintend the human authors in such a way that nothing of error remained. This is no more a denial of freewill than it would be for me to sit down with a young child and help them correct their spelling mistakes in a letter they just wrote. You are trying to create a logical impossibility where none exists.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If the Bible is a book that claims to be inerrant, but in fact is wrong in that most fundamental claim, then it is a book that claims authority on a deceitful basis - or, to put it bluntly, a fraud. To use a deceitful book as a moral guide is illogical to me.

Again, putting on my Christian hat, God would probably say "Tough, this was never supposed to be easy"

Say God comes down and reveals something to Paddy, who is working in the fields.

Paddy runs back and tells everyone in the town what he has been told. Someone quite rightly says "Well how do we know that everything Paddy has told us is correct?" The answer of course is simply You don't

But if you went to God and said "Hey, we aren't sure if we can trust everyone Paddy says as being totally accurate, can you tell us again each of us individually?" and God said "No, I chose to reveal through Paddy, that is the end of it" what would you do?

Would you a) reject everything Paddy told you because you cannot be sure that all of it is perfect?

If you did that then you risk missing what God did reveal to Paddy.

If on the other hand if you b) follow everything that Paddy told you you risk following something that isn't part of the revelation from God.

So what to do?

I would suggest that following either a or b are not the best solutions. Solution c) recognise that Paddy talked to God but that he is a man and can make mistakes when relaying this information is a lot harder but probably far more truthful.

But of course it is up to you to decide.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

This is no more a denial of freewill than it would be for me to sit down with a young child and help them correct their spelling mistakes in a letter they just wrote.

If God made the authors of the Bible, or everyone who copied the Bible down through the years, record the Bible perfectly then he altered their free will.

If he didn't then the possibility that some of them got it wrong, for what ever reason, exists.

Using your example above if the child makes a mistake you have two options. You can point out that mistake, to which the child may or may not correct it. Or you can force the child to correct the mistake. The later removes the child's free will. The former will not ensure that the mistake is actually corrected.

robindch

PDN wrote:

OK, let's try again

Thanks, I appreciate your time.

PDN wrote:

The Bible claims to be perfect. If it contained errors then it would not be perfect. Therefore the Bible claims to be inerrant.

I am aware that the bible claims that some of the text comes directly from a deity, but I don't recall where it says that every part of the text comes directly from a deity, nor do I recall where the bible claims to be perfect either -- do you have textual references for these?

But proceeding upon the assumption that they are in there somewhere and I've forgotten them...

PDN wrote:

If the Bible is a book that claims to be inerrant, but in fact is wrong in that most fundamental claim, then it is a book that claims authority on a deceitful basis - or, to put it bluntly, a fraud. To use a deceitful book as a moral guide is illogical to me.

Yes, that's correct and I agree with you 100%.

So, are you basing your claim that the bible is error-free upon (a) its own claim to be error-free and (b) the proposition that if it isn't error-free, that it's worthless. And since you believe that it is not worthless according to your initial belief, that you can safely conclude that it must therefore be error-free?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Again, putting on my Christian hat, God would probably say "Tough, this was never supposed to be easy"

Say God comes down and reveals something to Paddy, who is working in the fields.

Paddy runs back and tells everyone in the town what he has been told. Someone quite rightly says "Well how do we know that everything Paddy has told us is correct?" The answer of course is simply You don't

But if you went to God and said "Hey, we aren't sure if we can trust everyone Paddy says as being totally accurate, can you tell us again each of us individually?" and God said "No, I chose to reveal through Paddy, that is the end of it" what would you do?

Would you a) reject everything Paddy told you because you cannot be sure that all of it is perfect?

If you did that then you risk missing what God did reveal to Paddy.

If on the other hand if you b) follow everything that Paddy told you you risk following something that isn't part of the revelation from God.

So what to do?

I would suggest that following either a or b are not the best solutions. Solution c) recognise that Paddy talked to God but that he is a man and can make mistakes when relaying this information is a lot harder but probably far more truthful.

But of course it is up to you to decide.

Let's make this a truer analogy. Paddy claims, not just once, but on many occasions - "Look, everything I'm saying is totally true and accurate. My words are absolutely perfect." Then we catch Paddy out telling a lie.

In a court of law, a witness can be shown to be unreliable if they proved to be lying. Lawyers will go to great lengths to catch a witness out in telling lies, or to prove they have a past history of lying - even if those lies are totally unconnected with the current case.

Note that I am not saying that everything that Paddy says is necessarily a lie. If Paddy is a good liar then he will put enough of the truth into his story to make things plausible. But, even if Paddy has heard something from God, you cannot describe his words, taken as a unified whole, as a revelation from God.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate your time.I am aware that the bible claims that some of the text comes directly from a deity, but I don't recall where it says that every part of the text comes directly from a deity, nor do I recall where the bible claims to be perfect either -- do you have textual references for these?

To go over each one in context would take up more of my time than I can afford to give, and would probably bore most of the readers. Insisting on me posting them in detail would be a good ploy for an atheist to use to bog me down and stop me spreading the Gospel.

There is a book called "The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture" by BB Warfield which does this very exhaustively.

However, one such text would be "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). "God-breathed", the NIV rendering, is a more accurate translation of theopneustos than the KJV's "inspired".

So, are you basing your claim that the bible is error-free upon (a) its own claim to be error-free and (b) the proposition that if it isn't error-free, that it's worthless. And since you believe that it is not worthless according to your initial belief, that you can safely conclude that it must therefore be error-free?

I am concluding that the above is correct if I am to remain consistent with my initial faith propositions. But can I logically prove them? Of course not. Christianity is a faith, not a deduction. I believe it is a reasonable faith, you probably believe otherwise, but it ultimately rests upon faith and experience.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

So, the short answer is that a scholarly approach to exegesis is not necessarily inconsistent with taking the Genesis account of creation literally.

You’ve given a clear answer, and I’ll try not to overuse the ‘not necessarily inconsistent’ phrase because you’ve given a reasonable picture of what that means. I know you’re getting a lot of detailed reaction to your post, and I’m half reluctant to add to your work in responding. At the same time, I think a couple of thoughts in that space do emerge that I’d like to air.

Firstly, I’d have no problem accepting, in common sense terms, that most of the people who heard the original Genesis story took it to be true literally. But the scholarly approach would seem to kick away a fair amount of the support for saying that story is just as factually relevant today. That seems an inevitable consequence of saying scripture will record things in a way that is understandable to the audience at the time it was written and not in ways that would be inexplicable to them but understandable to us. Someone can still say ‘not necessarily inconsistent’ and take Genesis to be factual. But it looks very much like an uphill struggle.

Secondly, a point that comes to my mind, partly out of discussions I’ve had in the past about the Quran, where similarly scholars would stress the importance of understanding the context in which a particular revelation was given. The people who heard this message at the time simply understood the words as it related to their world. Hence, if there’s a parable with a King ordering the deaths of miscreants, its understandable to an audience well used of the idea that they live in a world where monarchs can wield powers on a pretty arbitrary basis. We don’t, so the message needs to be deciphered.

That need for deciphering seems to create a need for an interpretative class of religious authority figures – who else will be able to debate the finer points of whether a particular plural form of a word is truly plural or the ‘royal we’. Why would the message be delivered in such a roundabout way – so roundabout that presumably whole generations have come and gone working on what they thought in all honesty was the revelation, but that scholarship would say was just plain wrong. Why not have a revelation delivered to every generation, in a series of stories that are as simple and understandable as the ‘Topsy and Tim’ series so that people can genuinely dispense with the need for another person to intermediate divine word?

Putting a different slant on much the same point, there’s a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote

The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also.

Why the need for a deep understanding of the mindset of the audience of a text written two thousand years ago to decipher a meaning relevant to today? To my mind, enough complications arise from practical application of principles without adding a layer of purely technical ‘translation’ problems because we want to derive those principles from whatever the Bible is supposed to say.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

But, even if Paddy has heard something from God, you cannot describe his words, taken as a unified whole, as a revelation from God.

You are right. But you also cannot ignore that God has spoken to Paddy.

God clearly doesn't influence how his revelations are presented once they are revealed. He didn't stop the authors of KJV Bible creating an inaccurate translation. He didn't stop parts of the New Testament being added after the fact (Biblegateway will point out if a passage is not in the earliest discovered manuscripts). He wouldn't stop me re-writing the entire Bible and publishing it as a New Edition.

So really you are on your own. You cannot assume that everything in the Bible is perfect because God wouldn't interfere with the free will of the authors if it wasn't. Equally you cannot ignore the Bible because it is really the only revelation of God that you have.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

OK, let's try again. The Bible claims to be perfect. If it contained errors then it would not be perfect. Therefore the Bible claims to be inerrant.

If the Bible is a book that claims to be inerrant, but in fact is wrong in that most fundamental claim, then it is a book that claims authority on a deceitful basis - or, to put it bluntly, a fraud. To use a deceitful book as a moral guide is illogical to me.

Finally, a statement of this (common) position that makes sense! I'm assuming that the Bible does say explicitly that it is perfect, though - I can't remember such a claim.

PDN wrote:

Of course, without my initial faith propositions, logic may take you in a different direction. For example, if you don't believe that the 66 books of the Bible form a unified whole, then you may choose to reject the Bible's claims to perfection & inerrancy while accepting its claims in other areas.

Sure. Did I miss the reason why the 66 books form a unified whole?

[EDIT]Apologies, you've answered these.[/EDIT]

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

If God made the authors of the Bible, or everyone who copied the Bible down through the years, record the Bible perfectly then he altered their free will.

If he didn't then the possibility that some of them got it wrong, for what ever reason, exists.

Using your example above if the child makes a mistake you have two options. You can point out that mistake, to which the child may or may not correct it. Or you can force the child to correct the mistake. The later removes the child's free will. The former will not ensure that the mistake is actually corrected.

Firstly, let me stress that copyists or translators do make mistakes. That is why it is important to engage in textual criticism, determing that we are ascertaining accurately what the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures actually do say.

Yes, a child could refuse to follow my instructions as regards corrections. But then I would be perfectly able to insist that the child's letter does not go out in my name.

Incidentally, I find your absolutist interpretation of free-will to be fundamentally dodgy. We all operate under constraints. For example, I cannot travel in time, ignore the laws of gravity etc., but this does not mean that I lack free will. Saying to a child, "If you don't correct that mistake then I will not allow that letter to be posted" does not turn the child into a helpless puppet. Nor does God's superintendence of the Scriptural authors so as to protect them from error in any way entail a total denial of free will.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You are right. But you also cannot ignore that God has spoken to Paddy.

God clearly doesn't influence how his revelations are presented once they are revealed. He didn't stop the authors of KJV Bible creating an inaccurate translation. He didn't stop parts of the New Testament being added after the fact (Biblegateway will point out if a passage is not in the earliest discovered manuscripts). He wouldn't stop me re-writing the entire Bible and publishing it as a New Edition.

So really you are on your own. You cannot assume that everything in the Bible is perfect because God wouldn't interfere with the free will of the authors if it wasn't. Equally you cannot ignore the Bible because it is really the only revelation of God that you have.

It is not correct to say that the Bible is the only revelation from God that we have. For example, God speaks through prophets. However, prophets can get it wrong, or even be false prophets, so we need an objective standard to test the prophets. Christians believe that the Bible is that objective standard.

Of course any clown can misquote or mistranslate Scripture. That is why we need to use our God-given brains to determine what the original autographs of Scripture were (textual criticism), what they actually say (exegesis) and what that means for us today (hermeneutics).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

An Irenic post, open to Christians, atheiests, agnostics or anyone else who wishes to respond.

Good post.
I like finding out about Scientists and intellectuals who have a very good understanding of logic who still have a faith as I find it challenging and at times bemusing. I was checking out this guy, Dr. John Houghton, who is quite high up on the IPCC and climate change and he says in this interview that he thought the OT was just poetry not to be taken literally. I also found it interesting that he says that as a Christian and Scientist he found it quite sad that some Christians still think the OT is literal facts and the world was made in Six days. He also pointed out that Aquainus and John Calvin pointed out that the OT was not meant to be read literally and that there are various ways of intrepeting scripture.
Link to John Houghton, interview:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_houghton.html

PDN, you might find the Jesus seminar (although I am sure you have heard of it already) interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It is not correct to say that the Bible is the only revelation from God that we have. For example, God speaks through prophets.

Such as?

PDN wrote:

Of course any clown can misquote or mistranslate Scripture. That is why we need to use our God-given brains to determine what the original autographs of Scripture were (textual criticism), what they actually say (exegesis) and what that means for us today (hermeneutics).

So why can you not use your "God given brains" to figure out which parts of the Bible are simply made up and not part of a revelation from God?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Firstly, let me stress that copyists or translators do make mistakes. That is why it is important to engage in textual criticism, determing that we are ascertaining accurately what the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures actually do say.

You are working on assumption that the "original" Hebrew and Greek scriptures are the actual original texts.

They aren't, they themselves are copies. So why does the this not hold to them as well?

PDN wrote:

Yes, a child could refuse to follow my instructions as regards corrections. But then I would be perfectly able to insist that the child's letter does not go out in my name.

Yet God clearly doesn't do this.

When has God ever stopped the publication of a Bible that was in error, such as the KJV? Doing so would circumvent the free will of the author and publishers of said Bible.

PDN wrote:

For example, I cannot travel in time, ignore the laws of gravity etc., but this does not mean that I lack free will.

Well yes but that is because time travel and gravity are nothing to do with free will. Free will is the ability to choose what you will do.

PDN wrote:

Saying to a child, "If you don't correct that mistake then I will not allow that letter to be posted" does not turn the child into a helpless puppet.

You are right, but the child still is free to not correct the mistake, just as the Bible authors were free to do to the Bible anything they wanted. God didn't stop them. He might suggest they don't do it, but they still can.

PDN wrote:

Nor does God's superintendence of the Scriptural authors so as to protect them from error in any way entail a total denial of free will.

It would be if he actually stopped the author from completing his work.

Think of it this way, what would God do to an author who has made something up in the Bible. Would he kill him? Would he take over his body and force him to rewrite the passage? Would he simply appear in front of him and attempt to scare him?

robindch

PDN wrote:

Insisting on me posting them in detail would be a good ploy for an atheist to use to bog me down and stop me spreading the Gospel.

...which begs the question of why you're currently posting here amongst a bunch of rancid, irreconcilable atheists!

PDN wrote:

However, one such text would be "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). "God-breathed", the NIV rendering, is a more accurate translation of theopneustos than the KJV's "inspired".

Thanks for the quote (though I'm wondering now what 'scripture' meant to 2-tim, bearing in mind that the bible as we know it wasn't defined when he wrote his text). Incidentally, the KJV translation is perfectly accurate -- "inspire" originally meant to "breathe in", and still does in the medical world. The greek word is a mildly witty pun too.

PDN wrote:

I am concluding that the above is correct if I am to remain consistent with my initial faith propositions.

Ok, so my original proposition was correct -- you assume your conclusion to prove your conclusion. If you're interested, this is a logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. You are certainly correct in saying that your position is supported by belief, but however, you cannot, as you did in the first relevant post, declare that it is supported by logic, because it is not. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the chain of reasoning is circular and cannot therefore be used to determine a reliable conclusion.

bonkey

PDN wrote:

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially recognise the apocryphal books as part of the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent in 1546, 29 years after Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg - widely viewed as marking the beginning of the Reformation (or 'schism').

So the true Bible did exist prior to the Reformation. The canonisation of the apocrypha, along with papal infallibility, the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption of Mary are all post-Reformation additions to Catholicism.

Ah. Thanks for that.

I mistakenly thought they had been recognised prior to Luther.