Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Harold
 
With this subject of inerrancy, as with some others within my own tradition,
my approach is that an unambiguous text does not need a book [or even a
chapter in a book] to make it clear.  So I guess you could say I am
unconvinced by the many books I have read.  I cannot think of any other
examples that won't lead to a discussion here, so I will not give examples. 
Texts that rely on a certain set of presuppositions [as all do on both sides
of this question] for a "correct" reading are not, IMO, inherently
unambiguous.  My basic assumption is that if God wanted an inerrant Bible,
he would not only have inspired one, but also preserved the text uncorrupted
  As most of us agree he has not done the second, I conclude the first was
also not his priority.  What I am agreeing with Yitzhak on is that people
should be able to give information that we all know comes from a particular
tradition without anyone feeling the need to argue the tradition itself.  If
I might be allowed to cite an example that occurs quite often: Shoshanna
gives the orthodox Jewish point of view on a text - someone always feels
obliged to point out that many on this list are Christians and don't believe
that tradition.  We had extended discussions more than once simply to
establish Christians, in general, don't accept the oral Torah as
authoritative.  Did anyone learn anything new from this??  Someone else -
and Yitzhak is an example - will give information from a more liberal
scholarly POV, and again it is felt necessary to deny the validity of the
tradition.  We have had long discussions to point out that conservative
Christians generally don't accept the documentary hypothesis.  Again, what
was really gained?  Didn't we all know this??  I think by now we all know
most of the regular posters on here are from a conservative Christian
background.  Perhaps I notice more because I don't accept either the
inerrancy or the "scholarly" consensus as adequate ways of reading the Bible
 but have found I have learnt a lot from people who come from both sides,
and a few other traditions as well.  So I read for ideas, without worrying
too much about the beliefs that lie behind them.  I have just had to accept
that Evangelicals and fundamentalists and orthodox Jews and atheists - among
others -  *are* sometimes right in how they understand the Hebrew because
they *do* understand the Hebrew.  Bad [IMO] theological assumptions do not
mean that the Hebrew will be understood wrongly, nor do good [IMO]
theological assumptions mean that the Hebrew will be understood correctly. 
The same is true of historical and sociological, etc presuppositions.  I
would like to see us concentrate on the linguistic issues and just let the
other issues go by *silently*.  
 
The strange thing is, when it comes to understanding the Biblical texts, I
think I probably agree with Dave that the text needs to be understood at
different levels, and only a believer can do that.  *But* when it comes to
the literal understanding of the text, I cannot see that faith is required
to see what is *said*, but only when you move to understanding what is
*meant* - which is outside the scope of this list.  I see Scripture as two
things - the written text which is open to exactly the same scrutiny and
discussion as any text, and the "sacred" text which is always going to be
interpreted through a religious or secular tradition.  The written text says
what it says, whether it was inerrantly inspired, partially inspired, edited
 redacted, mis-copied, or simply made up as a work of fiction.  I see the
historical or literary criticism of scholars as nothing more [or less] than
another tradition which I am free to learn from or reject.  I no more feel
compelled to argue with their reading than I do with an orthodox Jewish or
fundamentalist Christian reading.  The only question when it comes to what
the text says is: are they correct?  That is a linguistic question, and does
not depend on getting theology or history or anything else outside of
language correct.
 
Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: Harold Holmyard 
Date: 30/03/2007 1:01:07 AM 
 
 
Kevin Riley wrote: 
> And until someone can show me a verse where God unambiguously 
> states that he views the text as inerrant and that he chose every word, I 
> will continue to hold that view of the text to be just as much a human 
> opinion as any other. 
> 
 
HHL: There are plenty of verses that could be used for this purpose, and 
Numerous books that aim to do just that, more than one of which I had to 
Read in seminary. Perhaps you haven't read them or don't find their 
Arguments persuasive. 
 
Yours, 
Harold Holmyard