Comments for The Naked Bible http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible What biblical theology looks like in its ancient context, freed from denominational confessions and theological systems. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:12:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 Comment on 1 Samuel 13:1 - The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/07/1-samuel-131-the-matter-of-missing-words-in-the-bible/#comment-396 MSH Sun, 24 Aug 2008 02:23:45 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=53#comment-396 @DJR: Agreed that someone could just come along and run into 1 Sam 13:1 and go off the deep end unnecessarily (but that information is in some study Bibles, so it isn't a secret). There are textual issues in every verse of the Bible, if you really get into the minutiae of the text. I'd say 95% are in the "who cares" category (did Jesus go "to" the temple or "toward" the temple?). Of the remaining five percent, I'd say easily the majority are in the "mildly interesting" category when it comes to meaning. The rest affect the meaning of the passage significantly, BUT it is true that no doctrine depends entirely (or even "mostly") on text-critical issues. The reason is simple. Doctrine (especially important doctrines) do not derive from prooftexting (single verses); they derive from and are molded by multiple passages. @DJR: Agreed that someone could just come along and run into 1 Sam 13:1 and go off the deep end unnecessarily (but that information is in some study Bibles, so it isn’t a secret). There are textual issues in every verse of the Bible, if you really get into the minutiae of the text. I’d say 95% are in the “who cares” category (did Jesus go “to” the temple or “toward” the temple?). Of the remaining five percent, I’d say easily the majority are in the “mildly interesting” category when it comes to meaning. The rest affect the meaning of the passage significantly, BUT it is true that no doctrine depends entirely (or even “mostly”) on text-critical issues. The reason is simple. Doctrine (especially important doctrines) do not derive from prooftexting (single verses); they derive from and are molded by multiple passages.

]]> Comment on Is It the Autograph, a Copy, or Something Else? by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/is-it-the-autograph-a-copy-or-something-else/#comment-395 MSH Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:14:23 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=57#comment-395 @rode: beats me. As moderns of the enlightment / empiricist tradition, we just want everything (including God) in a box or a file folder, tucked away without frayed edges. @rode: beats me. As moderns of the enlightment / empiricist tradition, we just want everything (including God) in a box or a file folder, tucked away without frayed edges.

]]> Comment on Let’s Talk About Divine Accommodation by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/lets-talk-about-divine-accommodation/#comment-394 MSH Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:13:09 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=56#comment-394 @drew: Yes, it's withholding information, quite clearly. It was God's idea to have Samuel tell them he was going to offer the heifer, so he didn't to tell them the real reason he was coming. Samuel DID offer the heifer, so he didn't utter a falsehood; but he also clearly deceived (at God's suggestion), withholding information from his enemies. God actually uses deception a decent number of times to thwart evil, a fact that renders Grudem's argument here nonsensical. @drew: Yes, it’s withholding information, quite clearly. It was God’s idea to have Samuel tell them he was going to offer the heifer, so he didn’t to tell them the real reason he was coming. Samuel DID offer the heifer, so he didn’t utter a falsehood; but he also clearly deceived (at God’s suggestion), withholding information from his enemies. God actually uses deception a decent number of times to thwart evil, a fact that renders Grudem’s argument here nonsensical.

]]> Comment on 1 Samuel 13:1 - The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible by DJR http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/07/1-samuel-131-the-matter-of-missing-words-in-the-bible/#comment-393 DJR Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:53:38 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=53#comment-393 I thank God for a discussion like this one. Being a layman and also new to the site, I don't know if anyone has posted exactly how many instances there are of textual criticisms in the entire protestant canon of scripture, but I could probably find a list online. However, from what I do know the criticisms are broken into two categories (at least in my mind): those that would affect the 'truth' of scripture in concept (God's nature, will) and those that are merely related to dates, names, history, timelines....etc. However, I am also aware that a mind not translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light would need obly the issue of 1 Samuel as excuse enough to dismiss all things Bible related entirely. I thank God for a discussion like this one. Being a layman and also new to the site, I don’t know if anyone has posted exactly how many instances there are of textual criticisms in the entire protestant canon of scripture, but I could probably find a list online. However, from what I do know the criticisms are broken into two categories (at least in my mind): those that would affect the ‘truth’ of scripture in concept (God’s nature, will) and those that are merely related to dates, names, history, timelines….etc. However, I am also aware that a mind not translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light would need obly the issue of 1 Samuel as excuse enough to dismiss all things Bible related entirely.

]]> Comment on Is It the Autograph, a Copy, or Something Else? by Chet Silvermonte http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/is-it-the-autograph-a-copy-or-something-else/#comment-392 Chet Silvermonte Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:53:56 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=57#comment-392 I'll play angel's advocate here: I don't quite get Ivan's point. He seems to want to use this to illustrate the very human process of composition, but it starts with "Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations". So to the extent that Jeremiah faithfully executes God's command, aren't the words of the first scroll God's? And the additional material in the second scroll that Ivan finds so interesting, well - time had passed, is it possible that God told Jeremiah more things to write in the intervening time? Must we read this as if the prophet is finishing in the flesh what was begun in the spirit? It's a cool passage, but does it really resolve anything? I’ll play angel’s advocate here: I don’t quite get Ivan’s point. He seems to want to use this to illustrate the very human process of composition, but it starts with “Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations”. So to the extent that Jeremiah faithfully executes God’s command, aren’t the words of the first scroll God’s? And the additional material in the second scroll that Ivan finds so interesting, well - time had passed, is it possible that God told Jeremiah more things to write in the intervening time? Must we read this as if the prophet is finishing in the flesh what was begun in the spirit? It’s a cool passage, but does it really resolve anything?

]]> Comment on Is It the Autograph, a Copy, or Something Else? by rode http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/is-it-the-autograph-a-copy-or-something-else/#comment-391 rode Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:04:57 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=57#comment-391 wow, that was excellent. why is it so hard to just accept the fact that the bible has been editing by humans? if we accept this, does the message of the bible change in anyway, or is this what we are afraid of? wow, that was excellent.

why is it so hard to just accept the fact that the bible has been editing by humans?
if we accept this, does the message of the bible change in anyway, or is this what we are afraid of?

]]> Comment on Let’s Talk About Divine Accommodation by drew http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/lets-talk-about-divine-accommodation/#comment-390 drew Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:08:12 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=56#comment-390 MSH: The point is not GOD’s ability to use human language; he’s perfectly capable of that. Rather, this is about other points Grudem fails to consider. Gday Mike ...............as i was reading the rest of the above, i thought of Ezekiel sitting on the banks of the river. Saying, Hey guys i just saw a Helicopter [if!! thats what he saw] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MSH: This is quite misguided. If you think withholding information is lying, then go read 1 Samuel 16. Did you mean this verse? 1Sa 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear [it], he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD. Is it even withholding info? Looks just like a way round the problem. imho. Not unlike Moses; i cant speak! OK i will send you Aaron Drew MSH: The point is not GOD’s ability to use human language; he’s perfectly capable of that. Rather, this is about other points Grudem fails to consider.

Gday Mike
……………as i was reading the rest of the above, i thought of Ezekiel sitting on the banks of the river.
Saying, Hey guys i just saw a Helicopter [if!! thats what he saw]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MSH: This is quite misguided. If you think withholding information is lying, then go read 1 Samuel 16.

Did you mean this verse?
1Sa 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear [it], he will kill me. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the LORD.

Is it even withholding info? Looks just like a way round the problem. imho. Not unlike Moses; i cant speak! OK i will send you Aaron
Drew

]]> Comment on 1 Samuel 13:1 - The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/07/1-samuel-131-the-matter-of-missing-words-in-the-bible/#comment-389 MSH Sun, 17 Aug 2008 07:08:25 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=53#comment-389 @Chet Silvermonte: To your first couple questions: Yes. This is a good question. As it stands now, I do distinguish between the production of the thing (the text) and its copying. I doubt that copyists (I speak of the professional class of scribes associated with OT transmission here) would have been handed the task of copying something incomplete or in transition, or that they would have seen their task as including further editing. I don't think the same way about the NT, only because the text was essentially copied under duress by people whose primary qualification (and maybe only qualification) was that they could write. But even that reality does not mean that those copyists saw themselves as thoughtful editors or critics of the thing they were copying. It just has to do with the reality that a copyist who wasn't really a copyist by profession would have a greater propensity to be more loose with the text (i.e., they'd have fewer inhibitions about changes in the presence of a textual difficulty or ambiguity). All that said, I don't see this as part of the inspiration process. @Chet Silvermonte: To your first couple questions: Yes.

This is a good question. As it stands now, I do distinguish between the production of the thing (the text) and its copying. I doubt that copyists (I speak of the professional class of scribes associated with OT transmission here) would have been handed the task of copying something incomplete or in transition, or that they would have seen their task as including further editing. I don’t think the same way about the NT, only because the text was essentially copied under duress by people whose primary qualification (and maybe only qualification) was that they could write. But even that reality does not mean that those copyists saw themselves as thoughtful editors or critics of the thing they were copying. It just has to do with the reality that a copyist who wasn’t really a copyist by profession would have a greater propensity to be more loose with the text (i.e., they’d have fewer inhibitions about changes in the presence of a textual difficulty or ambiguity). All that said, I don’t see this as part of the inspiration process.

]]> Comment on What’s the Point of the Inspiration Exercise? by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/what%e2%80%99s-the-point-of-the-inspiration-exercise/#comment-388 MSH Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:59:18 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=54#comment-388 @Chet Silvermonte: Possibly, but that's a rabbit-trail for now. @Chet Silvermonte: Possibly, but that’s a rabbit-trail for now.

]]> Comment on Inspiration and Inerrancy: Distinguishing Ends and Means, Process and Product by MSH http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2008/08/inspiration-and-inerrancy-distinguishing-ends-and-means-process-and-product/#comment-387 MSH Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:58:00 +0000 http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/?p=55#comment-387 @Chet Silvermonte: I'd rather say, "Scripture can accomplish its divine purposes despite poor or erroneous statements within the rhetoric used to accomplish those purposes." The "rightness" of the rhetoric isn't crucial to the truth claim's veracity. And further, for the time period in which it was written (and for some time thereafter), the statements within the rhetoric would not have been considered wrong. I view this as a necessary biproduct or "cost" to divine condescension. God didn't care about this cost, but we, as enlightenment modernistic thinkers get exorcised by it. Maybe it's time we look at the Bible the way God apparently thought of the enterprise. @Chet Silvermonte: I’d rather say, “Scripture can accomplish its divine purposes despite poor or erroneous statements within the rhetoric used to accomplish those purposes.” The “rightness” of the rhetoric isn’t crucial to the truth claim’s veracity. And further, for the time period in which it was written (and for some time thereafter), the statements within the rhetoric would not have been considered wrong. I view this as a necessary biproduct or “cost” to divine condescension. God didn’t care about this cost, but we, as enlightenment modernistic thinkers get exorcised by it. Maybe it’s time we look at the Bible the way God apparently thought of the enterprise.

]]>