Amen to your last paragraph!

How do you define faith, though? If you look at how the Bible defines faith, it says "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." There is no Biblical basis for faith based on lack of proof or evidence.

In reality, removing the Bible as an inerrant authority leaves issues of morality, ethics, faith, behavior and other issues open to individual interpretation, which is exactly what the Bible says we are not to do.

Further, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (or complete), thoroughly furnished (or equipped) unto all good works."

It seems that the resistance to Biblical authority comes more from a position of lack of knowledge, widsom or understanding, rather than error in the Bible itself. And why should the fact that people disagree about the meaning require us to abandon it as authority? We haven't abandoned the U.S. Constitution (yet, anyway), but look how many people disagree about its basis as authority for this country?

This is a good scholarly treatment of the inerrancy issue, with specific references to the original language:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=679

This link takes you to another article from the same website that addresses the differences in how different people view Biblical authority:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=693

They are both good articles, in case you want to read further on the subject.

In reality, removing the Bible as an inerrant authority leaves issues of morality, ethics, faith, behavior and other issues open to individual interpretation, which is exactly what the Bible says we are not to do.

Everything the Bible says may be true, but not necessarily easy to understand, especially when taken out of context. The Bible is a Jewish book. While Erasmus may have declared that there are many applications of a Scripture but only one interpretation, Jesus, as a rabbi steeped in the Midrash tradition, would have disagreed, saying that the Talmud has many different interpretations.

Midrash places the focus on the individual reader to reach an acceptable moral application of the text. That was how Jesus himself was able break 'divine law' when he performed miracles on the Sabbath.

Seems like, even if we take as given that God was the author, you can't get around the fact that the Bible was at least transcribed by fallible humans and the editorial decisions on which books to include and which books to exclude were made by fallible humans. Sure, you can argue, God's omnipotent, he could have caused those fallible humans to do a perfect job of executing his will. But that's not really his M.O., if the Bible is to be believed. He lets humans exercise their own judgment.

On a slightly different topic, I'm curious as to what arguments the missionary makes to the unbeliever to convince him to have faith in Christ and the Bible as opposed to any of the other religious beliefs which also ask for their own respective leaps of faith.

"Everything the Bible says may be true, but not necessarily easy to understand, especially when taken out of context."

Just because something is not easy to understand, however, does not mean that you reject it as authority. And as far as the Bible as a Jewish book, I assume that you do not accept any of the New Testament as being part of the Bible. Also, what about those portions of it that were written before there were Jews?

As far as Jesus being "a rabbi steeped in the Midrash tradition", much of what He had to say about Jewish tradition was critical, for example the passage about the widow's mite and the distinction He made between the Pharisee who beat his breast and cried aloud in the public square that he was grateful he was not like others and the man who simply said "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."

I would also point to the entire Sermon on the Mount as evidence of what Jesus had to say about Jewish tradition. Most of those passages start with "You have heard it said....," and "but I say to you...."

"what arguments the missionary makes to the unbeliever to convince him to have faith in Christ and the Bible as opposed to any of the other religious beliefs which also ask for their own respective leaps of faith"

The "arguments" aren't arguments; they're eyewitness testimony. Anytime you witness to someone, you have at least 2 good sources: the Bible and your own experience about what God has done in your life. I'm not saying that your own experience is equal authority to the Bible; I'm saying that the best way I've seen (and used) is to tell someone what God has done for you.

The best testimony I can think of in the New Testament is from John 9:13-34:

24 So a second time they called the man who had been blind, and said to him, "Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner."

25 He then answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see."

How can you argue with that?

I think that you are correct David. Salvation comes before Biblical authority. The day that I asked Jesus into my heart, I bought a Bible. The Holy Spirit can get you saved without a Bible, but if He does, you'll want a copy and you'll know it's the real deal.

"How can you argue with that?"

You argue the foundation. Whoever wrote the Book of John wrote it about 100 years after the fact. For starters. Whichever holy text you choose to believe requires a leap of faith. Why not the Koran or the Torah or the holy texts of other religions?

I guess I'm saying that faith has to come before trust in the Bible.

Excellent post, David.

If God dictated the Bible and the writers were mere scribes, then inerrancy would be a requirement.

I agree with the idea of bringing people to Christ, first. Anyway, more people are probably brought to Christ by observing someone who is Christ-like and having that person tell them about Christ than any teaching about doctrine.

What I fear most about myself is not that I will teach false doctrine (which I probably will or have done unintentionally at some time) but that I will lead an unfaithful and disobedient life that discourages others from the faith.

lawyerchik1

I don't understand your assumptions about me. As a Catholic, I certainly do accept the New Testament as part of the Bible. And I wouldn't reject the Bible as authority because it's not easy to understand. I will try to be very clear about the point I was trying to make.

I hope I have this part right, and I apologise in advance if I don't: these 'inerrancy' threads seemed to originate with a poster who questioned the authority of the Bible (and his own faith? - I'm not sure) because the Bible as written at the time may or may not have condoned slavery. (It may have condoned genocide, too, but I'd leave that up to you experts.) Another poster brought up the great debate about whether the Great Flood happened or not.

I brought up context for this reason. The Bible is (Talmud AND New Testament), again, a Jewish book, and yet a discussion of this sort might be of little interest to a Jew, because they don't read their Book the same way that some American Protestants seem to be reading it. Ask my Jewish wife what the Bible is, and she'll tell you that it is a "bunch of stories." Yes, it's the divinely inspired history of the relationship between God and His chosen people, but she'll also tell you it's not meant to be read like, say, Doris Kearn Goodwin's biography of FDR. That's what I meant by context. The Bible is truth, but may not all be true. The questioning by science, or whomever, about the absolute accuracy about certain parts of the bible would just not result in a crisis of faith for a Jew. Did the parting of the Red Sea actually happen? That not the sort the sort of question a Jew would ask. Nowadays it would more likely be the springboard for an exchange about respecting nature and/or subverting it for mankind's benefit.

Context. You might want to consider approaching the Bible from a Jewish perspective. That's what I meant.

John S you are correct that Christianity is a very Jewish religeon. "Salvation is of the Jews" and all promises made by God were to the Jews and later extended to the gentiles. The Bible is best understood in its Jewish context.
You should use Tenach rather than Talmud as the latter contains a good deal of commentary not in the Old Testament in the Christian Bible.
The Jewish system until 70 A.D. revolved around the Temple and the sacrifices made there for the sins of the Jewish people. That ended with the destruction of the Temple so there is a great deal of difference between modern and 1st century Judaism. So while the context is Jewish, modern Judaism has little or nothing to do with that context.

"And as far as the Bible as a Jewish book, I assume that you do not accept any of the New Testament as being part of the Bible."

My assumptions were based on your representation of the Bible as a Jewish book. From my discussions with Jewish friends, I have been advised that they only hold what we call the Old Testament as theirs; they do not believe that our New Testament is valid.

As far as your endorsement of your wife's claim that the Bible "[is] not meant to be read like, say, Doris Kearn Goodwin's biography of FDR," we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"You argue the foundation. Whoever wrote the Book of John wrote it about 100 years after the fact."

I'm talking about eyewitness testimony with respect to what God has done in your life (or whoever is doing the witnessing). The illustration from John was just to point out that the man who was born blind and was made to see again had the best testimony - his own experience with Jesus.

My family served as missionaries in South America (Argentina and Venezuela) in the mid-1970s. We certainly encountered people who did not believe the Bible, although there was perhaps at least a deference to it out of historical Catholic influence in those countries. The process changes only slightly.

When you talk to someone about Christ, whether the person does not believe the Bible at all or has any questions, you still have the evidence of what Christ has done in your own life as a witness - just like the man in John's gospel who said "I don't know if he's a sinner or not; I know that once I was blind, but now I see." That was the method the apostles used - they spoke of what they had heard and seen.

The other aspect of witnessing to people who may be resistant to the Bible itself is that the Holy Spirit does a great deal more work in people than we realize. The Bible says that none of us is righteous, and that no one comes to the Father except the Father draw him.

The call is out there to everyone, and each individual certainly has the ability to choose to ignore or refuse to listen to that call, but as those who would bear witness to what God has done in our lives and who seek to lead others to Him, we're not responsible for the result - only the witness. No one can "convince" anyone else to have faith in Christ and the Bible; that's the Holy Spirit's job.

"...there is a great deal of difference between modern and 1st century Judaism. So while the context is Jewish, modern Judaism has little or nothing to do with that context."

I'm certainly no scholar, but I suspect you may be correct Mike O, at least to some degree. Perhaps I should have said that rather than taking the Bible literally, some people might want to consider a Jewish APPROACH (not context) to reading the Bible, which I suspect may be very similar today to the approach in 70 A.D.

‘And as far as the Bible as a Jewish book, I assume that you do not accept any of the New Testament as being part of the Bible. Also, what about those portions of it that were written before there were Jews?’

The Old Testament is Jewish. Jews do not claim ownership or authorship of the New Testament. What portions of the Bible were written before there were Jews? Moses, who came several generations after Abraham, the first Jew, wrote the first five books. The rest of the books were written later than that.

‘As far as Jesus being "a rabbi steeped in the Midrash tradition", much of what He had to say about Jewish tradition was critical, for example the passage about the widow's mite and the distinction He made between the Pharisee who beat his breast and cried aloud in the public square that he was grateful he was not like others and the man who simply said "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."’

Midrash contains stories and commentaries on the Torah. I think it probable that Jesus was at least aware of Midrash given that he was raised Jewish and knew Scripture. He was probably familiar with the stories and oral tradition of his people. I think it safe to say that in Midrash you would find very similar sayings to what Jesus said. I think Jesus was critical of hypocrisy in prayer and sacrifice, much like the Prophets in the Old Testament period were.

‘I would also point to the entire Sermon on the Mount as evidence of what Jesus had to say about Jewish tradition. Most of those passages start with "You have heard it said....," and "but I say to you...."’

I think the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with Jewish tradition. When Jesus said “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy, But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,...” (Matthew 5:43-44), he was preaching against false teaching. Jews are not commanded to hate their enemies. In fact, the opposite is true. "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him.” Exodus 23:4 “If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it.” Exodus 23:5 This is not a commandment of hate for one’s enemy. Jesus also called the people to put additional restrictions on themselves in observance of the Law. In Jewish tradition, it is called “making a fence about the Torah.” The idea is to safeguard yourself from transgressing the Commandments. It is not enough to not commit murder, you must not hate your brother. See Leviticus 19:17 “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” How do you safeguard against committing adultery? Do not look at another woman lustfully. How do you safeguard against breaking an oath (swearing falsely)? Don’t swear at all. Jesus followed Jewish tradition. He didn’t like what the Pharisees and Sadducees had done with it and had several harsh things to say about them. He even went so far as to throw the money changers out of the Temple. And in the process he quoted from the Book of Isaiah! “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Isaiah 56:7 Just because he spoke out against the leadership of the Jewish people at the time doesn’t mean he was against Jewish Tradition. Several of the Prophets before him had done the same. Yet their words are preserved in the Bible and are studied over and over and are very much a part of Jewish tradition.

Be well,
Joseph

"Moses, who came several generations after Abraham, the first Jew, wrote the first five books." You're right - I misspoke based on the portions of the scripture that deal with history before Abraham, as opposed to the time they were written.

The point on tradition had to do with the previous commenter's claim that Jesus would have said "that the Talmud has many different interpretations" as a justification for the premise that "Midrash places the focus on the individual reader to reach an acceptable moral application of the text. That was how Jesus himself was able break 'divine law' when he performed miracles on the Sabbath."

The difference, again, as to Jesus' explanation of what tradition said as opposed to what God's law said (and was intended), is that the purpose of the Law was to show that man, no matter how diligent he was, could never achieve perfect compliance with the Law, and thus, he could never (on his own) satisfy God's standards of obedience. Where tradition seems to override the Law (as, for example, in the case of divorce), tradition was wrong and would not be satisfactory.

The Law was not given to be a master but to show humanity that it was, by nature and by choice, sinful and incapable of achieving sinlessness on its own; the Law was given to show us we needed the sacrificial and substitutionary atonement provided by Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.

Jews do not claim ownership or authorship of the New Testament.

Perhaps not ownership, but Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and John were Jews, and Paul was a rabbi.