Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
I’m not presuming anything different than generations of Christians have regarding “the canon of scripture” being God’s words. And, if you want to take that topic on these boards.... well...really?  I suspect Unto Him will move that discussion to Alternative Views. We should probably talk about your other points in the OP. |
We have already had a discussion on inerrancy. Needless to say, what is inerrant if we can't agree on what it says? Or is inerrant a term to put on top of our version of what it means so we can dismiss what others think it means?
I am not trying to say that the canon of scripture is invalid. Or that what we learn of God is diminished. But at the same time, the words used are not defined (by the Bible) as being inerrant. Neither are they described as dictated word-by-word by God.
The word translated as "inspired" or "God-breathed" does not simply mean dictated. We use it to refer to varying degrees of connection between one thing and another. Like a movie "inspired by the book" which is similar to, but not exactly like the book. Or is a story that is sort of like the book but has none of the same characters. Either could be "inspired" by something.
The problem with making a general statement like "generations of Christians" is that you presume that because they may have used a common word in some part of what they said that they mean the exact same thing. Two different groups using the same flowery verbiage concerning what scripture does and doesn't say stand and call the others heretics for their differing insistence that the Bible says "X" or "Y" in a certain place. Calling the words on the page "inerrant" really does not solve anything. It just works as a club to beat others over the head with.
In other words, the claim of inerrancy is almost always associated with "my way" of understanding the words I am reading. That makes inerrancy of no practical importance. But to say that the Bible (scripture) is profitable for teaching, etc., is without controversy (ignoring skeptics and unbelievers). But we do not presume to think that our mission is to hamstring all of the heathen (what some of Jacob's sons did to a neighboring tribe). So even the declaration that scripture is profitable for teaching does not mean that everything that God's people did (and is recorded in the Bible) is profitable for teaching/imitation. What else would you do with that, unless it is not really the point of the scripture, but an account of history that reveals mankind along with the God that slowly brings them to where they needed to be for the coming of the Messiah?
It was not necessary that God dictate those words. No matter how you tell it, you get the picture. But what is important is where God fits into the story. That is what is revealed. He is not revealed in the action of hamstringing the nearby tribe. He is revealed in the whole of the process of saving them from themselves, and eventually from famine. So the fact that it became part of the oral history is "inspired" by God.
If you want a better example of the unimportance of word-by-word dictation, read the various English translations and see that you ultimately get the same information. Even the very different Message translation mostly conveys the same thing while using words and phrases so different that if you are not paying attention, you may not recognize where in the Bible you are because it doesn't sound like the KJV, NASB, NIV, etc. translation that you may be used to. But either way, there is teaching, instruction in righteousness, etc., that is profitable.
But if you are seeking the Christian equivalent of a book of incantations and magical phrases, expect to be disappointed because it is not a book of crafted words that have special powers. (please understand this as a little over-the-top) It is a book of the progressive revelation of God in his relationship with man.