Ernie : How do you obey scripture when, for example, a text like Malachi 1: 11 is as ecumenical as anyone can think of, and another verse, such as Ezra 9 : 1 , is as anti-ecumenical as anyone might come up with ? Before a recommendation to obey scripture can make good sense it is necessary to be convincing to the effect that the Bible is non-contradictory. Otherwise you end up with recommending both "A" and "anti-A" Some things are prior to others. Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 12/11/2009 11:32:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Kevin and Lennart, On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Lennart Johansson wrote: > Kevin, > >> If I accept a priori that the text is true and contains no contradictions, I will not stop at little differences between translations. > > What about minor contradictions, within a translation or even > translations (and presumably within the original text) that does not > really alter the meaning of the text? Like in Matt. 10:9-10 where > Jesus says "Take... no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or > sandals, or a staff..." but in Mark 6:8-9 he says "Take nothing for > [your] journey except a staff..." We can throw in Luke 9:3 and the 3 > passages seems to contradict. Yet, the main point being something like > "go, and trust that God will take care of you" is still the truth in > all 3 passages? I think part of the problem is that inerrancy isn't usually defined very precisely. For example, I usually hear it defined as "the plain meaning of the original manuscripts is without substantive error." While I'm not entirely sure why the written word gets priority over oral tradition, I can understand the preference. The tricky part is "original". Modern Hebrew didn't exist until at least Ezra, and anything Moses wrote would've been in something completely different -- perhaps even Hieroglyphics. And I'm sure Billy would give you an earful about what can happen in 1,000 years of transmission... I think part of the obsessive focus on inerrant Scripture -- as opposed to mere "infallibility" -- comes from the Protestant desire to have something a perfectly authoritative as the Pope (or even "science" ;-). The reality is that even if you accept strict inerrancy, there's a lot of nuance and subjective decision making involved in interpreting Scripture. Frankly, if Christians did a better job of actually *obeying* Scripture, I think we'd have a lot less arguments about the right way to interpret or define its nature... -- Ernie P. _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
