Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

-------Original Message------- 
 
From: K Randolph 
Date: 29/03/2007 11:17:47 PM 
 
 
Dear Kevin: 
 
> .... It isn't 
> that simple. There are many believing Jews and Christians who either 
> question or deny inerrancy, and that is a long tradition in both faiths. 
> One can believe in inspiration without supporting inerrancy. That is in 
> fact the view of the majority of Christians - or at least, of the 
> denominations they belong to. 
 
According to a study done by the Barna Group, fewer than 10% of 
Americans who call themselves "Christian" follow the New Testament's 
Definition of that faith as it is described in the New Testament. So 
Of course the denominations' teachings will follow their members' 
Beliefs. 
 
**************************************
K:  But, when you set out with a particular minority understanding of what
the NT teaches, you will invariably find that the majority don't agree.  I
find Barna's work interesting, but his definitions of different categories
are not ones that many Christians hold.  Remember, there is no consensus on
what the NT understanding of that faith actually is, so measuring the degree
to which those who claim to be Christian depart from it is somewhat
difficult.  
 
**********************************
 
But that should not be an issue, because people of all faiths 
(including atheism) study Biblical Hebrew, and as long as we all limit 
Our discussion to the language itself, we should have no problem 
Interacting with and learning from each other. 
 
**********************************************
K:  That is, I believe, the original case that was put forward.  I see no
need to constantly point out that we disagree on much outside the text, and
then to go on discussing those differences for days as we sometimes have. 
Sometimes it is relevant, but mostly it isn't.  It is simply the need to
challenge a view not personally held that leads to the discussion continuing

 
**************************************************
 
> .... My understanding is also that neither 
> conservative nor reformed Judaism requires a belief in inerrancy. All of
us 
> who belong to one of those traditions, plus those who belong to no
religious 
> tradition, should be able to discuss our understanding of the text and its

> history without constantly being subjected to attempts to persuade us that

> the text is inerrant. The question of inerrancy is almost always
irrelevant 
> to what the Hebrew says. So too is the question of inspiration. The text 
> of Genesis is not going to change simply because someone moves from
viewing 
> it as purely human to seeing it as divinely inspired. How we interpret it 
> will not change either. How we apply it will, but that isn't the issue for

> this list. The story of David and Solomon will not change if I become 
> convinced there is no real history behind it - it will still say the same 
> thing. Why can we not just let dates of the exodus, and whether Gen 1-11
is 
> history or myth, just go past without comment and concentrate on what the 
> text says? 
 
This goes for all sides, right? 
 
*******************************************
As I tend to disagree at times with both/all of the sides that are most
popular, yes  :)
 
Kevin Riley