Subject: Re: Why do you believe the bible?
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 02:15:35 GMT
From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

In <38141272.2970 >,  (Graeme Hunt) wrote:
>It is irrelevant who authorises a translation. Anyone who is expert in
>Hebrew and Greek can even do his own translation. The important factor
>is what the original says.  

So when a person who has not studied Hebrew and Greek goes to the bookstore 
to buy a Bible, how do they decide which one to choose?  King James, NIV, 
NRSV, New Jerusalem, Good News, The Message...?  Which of these would you 
commend to a believer who was not learned in Hebrew and Greek, and why?
And when a Jehova’s Witness offers them a New World Translation at the d
oor, do you think they should refuse it, and why?

>And what do you mean by “Church”?  I suppose a bunch of bishops or
>something. The fact is that Christian scholars have been able to
>discern which are the obviously inspired texts of the canon, it isn’t
>that difficult once one has a very good knowledge of the Word.  

That is exactly the same argument propsed by the Jesus Seminar - Scholars, 
not ecclesiastical heirarchs should decide which books, and which 
translations of those books, are the most reliable. Are you sure that is 
what you want to say?

>>Joan:
>>>Nigel, you are using the very same excuse again in these last two paragraphs
>>>as cults do.

>Nigel:
>>I am not sure what you mean by “the same excuses as the cults do”.
>>Are you aware that the Bible has a history. It did not fall from
>>heaven. It was written, authorised, and transmitted to us by human
>>beings.

>This is where your argument fails. You persist in wording your
>argument as though the human authors of scripture had any real say in
>what was written. This effectively eliminates the inspiration factor
>and that the Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit had total control of
>the writing of scripture. This is why it is referred to as the Word of
>God. It isn’t the writings of men. Men were only the instruments of
>the divine will. 

That is your opinion. The internal evidence of the scriptures indicates 
otherwise, eg the introductions to Luke and Acts, the personal messages 
in some of the epistles, etc.

>>I am confident that those human beings were acting under the
>>inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but I am also confident that they were
>>not infallible in what they did. 

>Then you are contradicting the meaning of inspiration as declared in
>the scripture. You just can’t seem to grasp it.

Where is the meaning of inspiration declared in scripture?

I don’t think I can be contradicting it, because it is not there.

>>Once again, you seem to contradict yourself, when you write:
>>> Who cares which books were included or excluded, or who
>>>decides, what matters is the ones that were.
>>
> She isn’t actually, she is quite right. The inference is (correctly
>so) that God has sovereignly directed the writing of scripture so that
>we have it exactly as he intended. 

If you are right, what was the mechanics of God communicating his decision?
As you know, the canon of the NT was hotly debated over a period of at least 
100 years in the early Church. The canon of the OT was not definitively 
stated by any branch of the Church until after the Protestant reformation, 
and there are at least three lists of books to choose from even today.

>>I care which books are included and excluded. There were many books of
>>religious and national significance in Ancient Israel, but the Jews
>>chose a particular list of books to be their Torah, and also gave
>>authority to certain books of Prophets and Writings. 

>Only certain books and writings had the authority of scripture,
>therefore it is natural that only they were included in the canon.
>This is why the Apocrypha is not in the canon, it was not divinely
>inspired scripture.

The apocrypha is included in the canon for Roman Catholic and Orthodox 
Churches, and commended for reading and study by Anglicans. As I said 
above, it was only after the  reformation that protestant churches 
efinitively excluded the Apocryphal books from the canon. The reformers 
were fallible men, as we know.

>>There were many books written by Christians and others during the 
>>first century about
>>Jesus and Christianity, but the Church chose a particular list of
>>books to make up the New Testament.

>Because it was obvious that the ones chosen were the inspired Word;
>others were not. It really is simple.

Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? On what basis would you excclude this 
book from the category of “Inspired Word”. The reason I ask is 
because of your comment above about scholars, given that the scholars of 
the Jesus Seminar have decided that this text should be included amongst 
those books which give a reliable record of information about Jesus. If 
they are wrong, on what basis (other than your scholarship against 
theirs) do you make this judgement?

>> At the risk of repeating myself, I
>>believe that the pwople who wrote those texts and decided which ones
>>should be accepted as Scripture were acting under the inspiration of
>>the Holy Spirit, but not infallible.

>Again, you make a serious error here. You do not make the distinction
>between inspiration of scripture and guidance. Inspiration of
>scripture involved the writers of scripture only. As for selection of
>texts which were in the canon the spiritual guidance principle is no
>different from the spiritual guidance in many other spheres of
>Christian life. Very few human beings were ever involved in the
>inspiration of scripture. Many, many Christians are involved in divine
>guidance. In fact, it should be the norm for every Christian.

If you believe that Inspiration and Guidance are different things, and 
that they are defined differently in the BIble, please explain youw you 
support these assertions.

>>
>>Perhaps your answers to these questions might clarify your position
>>for me:
>>How do you think we arrived at the particular list of books in our
>>modern Bibles?
>>Does your Bible contain the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books - if so,
>>why, and if not, why not? On whose authority do you believe them to be
>>scriptural, or not, as the case may be?

>All that is irrelevant speculation. The principle is that God
>sovereignly provided His Word for all believers. He used spirit-filled
>believers to select the inspired scriptures which formed the canon.
>That is all that matters in the final anaylsis. The only people that
>make much of an issue of this these days are the liberal rationalists,
>most of whom are unbelievers anyway. 

So you trust that God correctly guided the spirit filled believers who 
selected the books which make up the canon. So do I. 

>>>>>The Bible is the revealer of all God is and
>>>>>His plan of salvation for us in Christ, it tells what is and what is not
>>>>>acceptable to Him, it’s speaks of grace, life, love, healing, wholeness,
>>>>>justice and purity etc. In short it’s The Book of Life given to us by God.
>>>>
>>>>I realise that some Christians believe it to be that, but you must
>>>>also realise that many Christians have other views.

>So many Christians are mistaken!  That is the simple answer to that.
>You are apparently one of them.

>> I believe that the
>>>>Bible is the essential source of doctrine and true understanding of
>>>>Christian faith. I read it daily, study it constantly, and preach from
>>>>it regularly. But I also recognise that it is written, authorised, and
>>>>transmitted to me by human beings who were not perfect. I also know
>>>>that my understanding of the Bible is not perfect.

>Again, the fallibility of human writers is not an issue in
>inspiration. When will you ever get it into your head? Read the
>scriptures - 2 Peter, as I have already drawn to your attention, tells
>how the Holy Spirit bore along the writers of scripture so that the
>verbnal record was accurately made. 

Yes, but as illustrated by the typo in your last sentence (and the many 
typos in my posts), fallible human beings make mistakes.

>>>And I believe it to be the infallible Word of God also to be used for
>>>reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

>>I agree with everything in the above sentence except the word
>>”infallible”. It is not included in 2 Timothy 3:16, and I see neither
>>reason nor scriptural warrant to add it.

>So why do you have such a problem with the word “infallible” when God
>was the author?  Answer: Unbelief!  You rely more on your own
>reasoning than the assurance of the Word of God. In other wrds, you
>are effectively saying that God does not man what He says.

I think God does mean what he says.
I also am sure that “infallibility” is absent from both the content 
and the nature of the scriptures.

>>>>Yes, I do think that God allowed fallible human beings to write,
>>>>authorise, transmit and translate the Bible. I am also humbled by the
>>>>fact that he calls fallible people like you and me to share it’s
>>>>message with those around us.
>>
>>>I get your point Nigel...which makes it all the more reason why God had to
>>>be The Author...and not fallible men. But as I asked...do you honestly
>>>believe God would have let them write anything which wasn’t of Him?.
>>
>>Yes.
>>You only have to read this newsgroup for a day to see how much is
>>written about God which is ungodly.

>Hmmm... and plenty of yours too???

I hope not, but as you know I am fallible and a sinner. 

>>As I said above, there were literally hundreds of other documents and
>>texts which _could_ have been included in the Old and New Testaments
>>of our Bibles, but which the Jewish and Christian communities
>>rejected. 

>For the simple reason that they were not a part of the canon, there
>was no divine inspiration involved.

>>>>The prophets of Israel and the Apostles of Jesus were not infallible
>>>>men. They were people of faith, like you and me, who experienced God
>>>>in their lives, and were inspired by God to write about that
>>>>experience. The Jewish and Christian communities which followed them
>>>>recognised that God spoke in and through their writings, and
>>>>authorised them as Scripture. It is not neccesary for any of the
>>>>participants in this process to be ‘infallible’.
>>
>>>Oh come on!...the Christian communities saw God’s power and authority in
>>>them!. 
>>
>>The Christian communities wrote them!

>They didn’t write them. The only thing you canh attribute to Christian
>communities is that they copied what was written by divine
>inspiration.

I think you are presenting an idealistic and distorted notion of how the 
books of the NT were written, distributed and authorised here.  Hopefully 
you will respond to my question above, but I will ask it again here in a 
different way.

Given that we know that several different lists of the NT canon were 
circulating and in use in the churches of the second century, at what 
point and by what process do you believe that the canon was defined?

cheers
N+
Nigel B. Mitchell