1) Saying God’s Word is inerrant or infallible is pointless because interpretation is subject to error. What is the point of a god who makes an inerrant or infallible book and then gives the Holy Spirit to help interpret it if believers themselves still do not know what most of it actually means or if people are always updating or changing their interpretation? The very fact that in two thousand years no one can still figure out how to properly interpret large portions of the Bible (i.e. Revelation) is excellent evidence that God is a poor communicator. So it seems pointless to say it is inerrant or infallible.
2) God’s Word is insufficient because other tools must be used or invented to interpret it. Think commentaries, archaeology, Greek and Hebrew language studies, etc. If one cannot properly understand what God said unless they study these things, then God’s Word is insufficient. Enough said.
3) God’s Word is incomplete because a large portion of New Testament theology comes from books that are not included in the canon. Think Jude and the Book of Enoch or the Assumption of Moses. That’s right, Jude directly quotes the Book of Enoch. If the Book of Enoch is not inspired, why does Jude quote it as if it were? If it is inspired, why is it not in the canon? That’s just one example.
4) God’s Word is unclear because believers can still not agree on the proper interpretations. Enough said.
5) God’s Word is out of date (not timeless) because interpretation is dependent on recent (last couple hundred years) archaeological, historical, and language discoveries. Lets say Bob the Archaeologist discovers a cool thing about a Greek word because of tablet he digs up. Let’s this discovery sheds light on the interpretation of a Bible passage. Does this mean that nobody had the right interpretation in the last thousand or more years until that discovery was made? If so, does this not mean God’s Word is no longer up to date? Why do people keep making new translations if God’s Word is timeless?
6) God’s Word is inconsistent because the methods used to interpret it change over time. It is pretty obvious that the New Testament believers had far lower standards of interpretation than we do today (the virgin birth anyone?). If they interpret that way, why can’t we? If we can’t interpret that way, why do we let them get away with it? Because they were inspired? How can it be inspired if they broke interpretive rules?
7) God’s Word is relative and not absolute because interpretation depends on the reader. People interpret the Bible through the things they already know. This means every interpretation of the Bible is relative to the individual doing the interpreting. If every interpretation is relative to the individual, what is the point of saying God is communicating a single message? If his message depends on the reader, then every interpretation is valid.
Anyway, seven is a perfect number so I’ll stop here for now :)
Hey, looks like I’ll be the first to comment. Can’t address everything in one post, but I can discuss point three abit with you.
I don’t know we can assume a whole work is true, and inspired because a canonical writer happened to quote from a portion of it. I mean the apostle quotes from the Greek philosophers when he says of God , “For it is in Him that we live, and move, and have our being.”
I think all truth is God’s truth, and parts of it can be found just about everywhere.
I want to add though, that my church, TEC, does make use of the apocrypha for informative, and historical purposes. There is some good stuff there, and plenty of nonsense, too. (laughing)
“I don’t know we can assume a whole work is true, and inspired because a canonical writer happened to quote from a portion of it.”
Well, sure. But then why should we accept any of the Old Testament works that are quoted? What about Old Testament works that are cited but do not exist in the canon. For example, there are locations in the New Testament that indicate that Jesus was supposed to die and rise on the third day. I still can’t find that passage in the Old Testament. Sure, one can look for the number three (pretty common) in passages and concluded that maybe it is an allusion of a prophecy, but that doesn’t work for me.
The thing that “got me”, so to speak, was that the Book of Enoch was considered part of the canon by many sects of Judaism during that era. It was considered authentic by many people (they thought Noah brought it with him on the ark, go figure). The Book of Enoch also contains a rather explicit prophecy of the Messiah. So it would actually make sense if Jude quoted it as authoritative.
The other problem is that if the entire book was invented, then Enoch did not say what Jude says he prophesied. Instead, some Jewish zealot invented the whole thing. So that means Jude is wrong there.
The real problem is Jude says that Enoch prophecies. He quotes directly from the Book of Enoch – a book which was considered inspired and authentic by many contemporaries.
It would be really, really weird if Jude would quote a book which was considered by many contemporaries as authoritative, but not clarify that he was not advocating the book.
Paul at least clarifies when he says “one of your own”.
But I mean, the real issue is that none of the books are inspired so everything looks exactly like what you would expect. Each author is making different quotes, not clarifying what they believe to be inspired books or inspired authors, writing to a unique, local audience, etc. Would we expect it to be clear?
The only way we could clarify once and for all is to ask Jude what he meant, and he’s not around anymore.
So why don’t church leaders teach this stuff? Why do most people only learn this once they have already decided to go into ministry? Now you can probably understand my frustration at the church. For years upon years I was tortured with a fear of hell and stress about the security of my salvation (based upon Biblical passages like Hebrews 6) and then I find out that if people had just told me the whole truth I could saved myself all that time and energy.
I just don’t feel like church leaders are being 100% honest and open about the difficulties with their faith because they are afraid they will lose members.
The Bible makes more sense now to me than it ever did within the faith.
“I think all truth is God’s truth, and parts of it can be found just about everywhere.”
So what do you do with truths that contradiction what the Bible explicitly says?
For example, Job says that the heavens are hard (the firmament). We know this is not true.
How can both be true and God be the source of both?
Hey, Josh,
Don’t want you to think I”m ignoring your comments. But, I need to give them so more thought, before I respond. It’s been one of those hectic, busy days. :)
Hope to be back soon.
i largely agree. but this comes with the assumption that ALL of the bible is God’s word… one i’ve never held. it’s inspired. just as Hemmingway was inspired by the sea and Cuba. just as Van Gogh was inspired by color and the French countryside.
“God’s Word is relative and not absolute because interpretation depends on the reader”
just has creation is! time is relative and the interpretation depends on the life-liver (is that a word?).
i wouldn’t say the bible is out of date though. are the assumptions, science, cosmology and all that out of date? sure! but if you look at the psycho-social aspect of it, humans are largely doing the same things over and over again.
“but if you look at the psycho-social aspect of it, humans are largely doing the same things over and over again.
Sure, humans have not evolved much in the last 6 thousand years.
we have in so many other ways.. like technology, scientifically, artistically… but our behavior hasn’t. much of it is still very much biblical. there’s a new article in Seed about new findings of Human Evolution and how it’s not as static as scientists may have previously thought.
i couldn’t find the exact article, but this was a similar and interesting one: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/how_we_evolve/
Well, I think there are some churches where people have these kind of discussions, sharing back and forth, all the time, and then others not. Have you ever visited in some of the more progressive, mainline churches, Josh? Even there, people won’t always agree, though.
I can’t find the reference in Job. If you let me know where it’s at, I can share my opinion with you, for what it’s worth.
It’s sad to me about these churches who have Christian people worrying about Hell, and stressing over their salvation. To me, this is the complete antithesis of the gospel of grace.