Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re right, I don’t believe that I have all of the answers to the Universe.

I am more interested in discussion than argument. Some who comment on Bob’s Blog seem to think that the Bible is not inerrant and that because it is not inerrant they rely more upon what the Holy Spirit speaks to their hearts than what the Word of God speaks to them, or what the scripture literally says. I have no problem with that, per se, where I have a problem is when there is scripture wherein there can be no identifiable contradiction and the meaning is clear that some do not accept that very clear and consistent message of the Bible, instead seemingly picking and choosing what they will accept and what they will not accept. You say nothing infuriates you more than inconsistency, well, it doesn’t “infuriate” me but this seems like an inconsistent position to me. It is inconsistent to accept as true and right certain portions of the scripture because you happen to like the underlying concept while ignoring the underlying concept of other portions of the scripture.

Now, I told you that you do not have to agree with my belief that the Bible is inerrant, Tony. You seem to be unwilling to give me the same respect that I have offered to you by allowing me my own belief and conviction that the Bible IS inerrant, why, I don’t know for sure, only you would be able to answer that question.

I have learned a lot by visiting Progressive blogs, it has caused me to rethink some of my positions and strengthened my beliefs on other positions. Insulting my intelligence by claiming that you have a more profound and deep understanding than me teaches me nothing, Tony. You want to ask me a barrage of questions about very specific scriptures which you view as inconsistent. I QUESTION THE MOTIVES OF YOUR HEART for engaging me in this fashion. Further, I think you misunderstand my understanding of Biblical inerrancy. I am also talking about underlying truth which is revealed in the Bible. You seem to be trying to pin me down to restrict my views of that underlying truth. Yes, I believe in an inerrant Bible. The underlying truth of the ENTIRE Bible IS all consistent, throughout the Bible! This is why I have, in the past, often referred to the flavor of the Bible and discussed how important it is to take it as a whole and not as little out of context scripture recitations intended to support a political or social view! You just do not understand me and I have no hope that you will because, frankly, Tony, I don’t believe you WANT to understand me.

Tony, I KNOW IN WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED. At the same time, I do make every effort to have a humble heart, to be willing to listen to others, to dialog with others, to answer questions as honestly as possible when they are asked, but Tony, I don’t believe you are really interested in what I think about anything, I get the feeling, to you, this is all about finding a winner and a loser.

J., you gave a very nice personal testimony but didn’t shed any new light on the subject at hand; Biblical inerrancy. The resurrection accounts cannot simply be dismissed as different views of the same story. In Mark, Jesus is waiting for the disciples in Galilee. In John, Jesus appears to the disciples on the day of his resurrection in Jerusalem. The accounts are vastly different. It is not the same story. The truth lies in the fact that the one thing they all have in common is the testimony that Jesus rose. Which is enough for me.

This is not a nagging point. I think anyone who is engaged in a debate needs to be consistent in their argument. You can not be a selective literalist when it serves your point and a generalist when you have a new point to make. Like people of any faith, a Christian’s view of the world is shaped by their understanding of God. Not only for faith issues but political and social issues as well. Nothing is more infuriating for this progressive Christian, than an inconsistent argument and a selective use of the Bible when addressing political or social issues.

First, for the record, Tony, I feel I am a fairly respectful person of others unless and until they abuse me by pretending that I’m too stupid to understand them, especially when in the meantime a particular person seems to be unable to even comprehend what I am saying, either that or the person chooses to ignore what I’m saying, the verdict is still out on that. Yes, I have been arrogant with you, you began with the arrogance, Tony, when you implied that “progressive” Christians hold an exclusive superior and enlightened state of being which affords them a deeper understanding than “Conservatives.” Later, you did your best to make me appear stupid, Tony. I seldom sit back and allow people to berate me without responding in such a manner as to expose them for what they are trying to imply about my own character, perhaps it would do you good to remember that in the future when you want to go all “pompous” on me again. I would be more than willing to call a truce if you are willing to show me the same respect that you would like to receive, does that sound fair to you?

Now, you are throwing some questions out to me about the Gospel accounts of the New Testament. You say:

“Consider the fact that the Bible was not hand written by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible. This removes the whole question of inerrancy. It becomes a moot point.”

I have never claimed that the ghostly hand of the Holy Spirit wrote the scripture. I have always made the statement that the writers of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that the Holy Spirit takes complete control and forces His own words to come out on a page, I believe it means that the Holy Spirit guided the writers of the scripture, and I believe that the writers of the scripture had a heavy burden to do so, to record the steps of Jesus and that in their inspired state, they also used the language and vocabulary that they knew and that some things stood out to this Apostle more than it did to that Apostle. Now, in the part of the scripture you have referenced, these men were all reliant upon the women who attended the tomb that first Easter, with the exception of Mark, who was reliant on the preachings of Peter. Each of these disciples, other than Mark, heard the account of the women, each of them were striken by different aspects of the “story” much as you and I would be stricken by different aspects of a movie. When you relate to a friend about the movie we saw last night your perspective and accounting of that movie will be different than mine. You might not even mention my favorite scene which didn’t particularly strike you and vice versa. See what I mean? Neither of us would be getting the story WRONG, our accounting of the story would just be different.

Regarding the book of Mark, I learned that Mark was a close associate of Peter, Mark acted as a translator and scribe for Peter. Indications are that Mark recorded the preachings of Peter and that Mark’s writings are a reflection of Peter’s view of Christ.

My faith is in the God the Bible reflects, also, Tony, but I cannot agree with you that there are contradictions in the Bible, I believe that if one studies and reads the Bible that all the scriptures compliment each other. Now, you have every right to disagree with me, I can’t make you agree with me on the inerrancy of the Bible, I just know that in all of my study of the Bible, whenever I have found something which I thought was inconsistent with some other scripture I have read, rather than believing it was inconsistent it would puzzle me enough to look into it until I could understand the full meaning and see how it fit in with what I had at first viewed as an inconsistency. Sometimes that means I have to rely on a scholar who understands languages which I don’t understand, sometimes it means that I must carefully read the footnotes in my Bible or pull my Vine’s Expository off the shelf, but I can tell you that, in my personal experience, I have always been able to come to an understanding, at some point, and that the Bible compliments itself rather than contradicts itself. I cannot do that study and work for you, Tony, I don’t have the time, but if you are really interested in those answers it is ultimately your responsibility to study to show yourself approved. No matter what I say it really wouldn’t teach you anything anyway, these are discoveries that each of us must make on our own with God’s help.

Sorry, I thought you were talking to Wildwest about that part, what was the “W” for? I don’t have time to address that question at the moment. Later.

“Since you prefer to hide behind whimsy rather than address the issue should I assume reluctance or inability to answer?”

I am not “hiding behind whimsy” I am merely pointing out that what you claim I said was not at all what I said, Tony. I never said that the Bible SPECIFICALLY references any of the things you listed, I have pointed that out to you, you are asking me to support a statement that I never made in the first place, why should I? I will support any and every statement I make or I will admit when I am in error, but I did not state what you claim I have stated therefore there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason for me to qualify it. Get it?

Further, your last statement that “the truth of the Bible is not dependant on the issue of inerrancy but on who God is?” How does this differ from what I have been saying all along!?

Quote:

“I do have faith that the Word is inerrant, because if I believe otherwise then I believe that God did not inspire those who wrote it to write it and I must also believe that God is not powerful enough to have inspired these men to say what He wanted to say, or to keep those words pure…” I believe in the issue of inerrancy BECAUSE of who God is, Tony! (See my comment #55)

You are arguing with shadows, Tony.

And now for the question of inerrancy. W., what I hear you say is that your faith in God is contingent on Biblical inerrancy. By implication that means that you do not have faith in God but in formation of the Bible. Because if the Bible as you understand it crumbles, then your God crumbles too. There is another way.

Consider the fact that the Bible was not hand written by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible. This removes the whole question of inerrancy. It becomes a moot point. Consider the four Gospels. Each Gospel has a different account of what happened on the morning of that first Easter. Matthew tells us that Mary Magdalene and “another Mary” went to the tomb. Mark tells us that it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome who went to the tomb. Luke says it was the “women who came with him from Galilee” who went to the tomb, and John tells us it was Mary Magdalene who went to the tomb. In Matthew there is an earthquake and an angel descends from heaven to roll back the stone, in the other accounts the stone is already gone. The accounts differ on who greets the women at the tomb and what they are told. In Mark the response to the empty tomb is that the women say nothing to no one because they are afraid. In other accounts they go and tell the disciples. In John’s account it is Jesus himself who greets Mary. And the post resurrection appearances of Jesus are different in each of the Gospels. Now unless you read into the accounts a lot of running back and forth by various persons… which is not in the Bible… then you have to conclude that someone got the story wrong. How do you decide which is the right story?

However, for persons like myself for whom Biblical inerrancy is not an issue, we look through the event to the central truth behind the event: The tomb is empty… Christ is risen! What is important is WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT GOD! My faith is in the God the text reveals not in the text.

Compare the Decalogue in Exodus to the Decalogue in Deuteronomy. Why the difference? Compare the two creation accounts in Genesis. Why does Mark write at the beginning of his Gospel, “As it is recorded in Isaiah”, and then quote Micah? The Bible is full of inerrancies. But this is not an issue for those who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Holy Spirit inspired persons to give account of the nature and deeds of God so that we might know God. People, the writers of the Bibles see some things differently… but God remains consistent.

The truth of the Bible is not dependant on the issue of inerrancy but on who God is.