.gif)
The emphasis is mine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Actionline
To: Nicole Czarnecki
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 10:15 am
Subject: Re: GOA Web Feedback - orthodox
-----Original Message-----
From: Actionline
To: Nicole Czarnecki
Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2012 10:15 am
Subject: Re: GOA Web Feedback - orthodox
Nicole,
First, please accept our apologies for a very tardy reply.
I am not sure that I understand your question, but I will do my best to respond. To begin, there is a difference between factual accuracy and truth. If I were to refer to a close friend as a brother, that is not factually accurate (he's not really my biological brother), but it does testify to a greater truth, which is that I love him and care for him as deeply as I would if he were my own brother. Likewise is many elements of our life in God, including the Bible.
There are parts of the Bible that we can fully trust to be factually accurate, and some which are not (e.g. we don't maintain the creation was completed in an actual seven days). But, every part of the Bible, every word of it, testifies to the Truth of God. We are not so concerned with facts, but with Truth.
The facts are that parts of Scripture are in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete as a simple text. And if you regard it just as a simple text, you will be disappointed. But the truth is that the Holy Spirit lives and breaths through Scripture, and gives life to the Church and its people. The fact that it may be "errant", strictly speaking, makes no difference and takes nothing away. It indeed remains the Word of God.
In Christ,
SM
-----Original Message-----
From: "Nicole Czarnecki" <nickidewbear@aol.com>
Sent 9/16/2011 10:45:40 PM
To: actionline@mail.goarch.org
Subject: GOA Web Feedback - orthodox
First, please accept our apologies for a very tardy reply.
I am not sure that I understand your question, but I will do my best to respond. To begin, there is a difference between factual accuracy and truth. If I were to refer to a close friend as a brother, that is not factually accurate (he's not really my biological brother), but it does testify to a greater truth, which is that I love him and care for him as deeply as I would if he were my own brother. Likewise is many elements of our life in God, including the Bible.
There are parts of the Bible that we can fully trust to be factually accurate, and some which are not (e.g. we don't maintain the creation was completed in an actual seven days). But, every part of the Bible, every word of it, testifies to the Truth of God. We are not so concerned with facts, but with Truth.
The facts are that parts of Scripture are in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete as a simple text. And if you regard it just as a simple text, you will be disappointed. But the truth is that the Holy Spirit lives and breaths through Scripture, and gives life to the Church and its people. The fact that it may be "errant", strictly speaking, makes no difference and takes nothing away. It indeed remains the Word of God.
In Christ,
SM
-----Original Message-----
From: "Nicole Czarnecki" <nickidewbear@aol.com>
Sent 9/16/2011 10:45:40 PM
To: actionline@mail.goarch.org
Subject: GOA Web Feedback - orthodox
Why doesn't the Orthodox Church believe in the inerrancy of the Word of G-d (the Bible)?
The Catholic (in this case, Byzantine Catholic) Church believes that fact is not necessarily truth, and vice versa. The Catholic Church also believes that facts are not important, thus that truth is actually not that important. They also believe that Jesus (Who is the Word), is "in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete"; and that Jesus can't actually remain the Word of G-d.
6 comments:
I agree with what that person wrote. :)
"The facts are that parts of Scripture are in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete as a simple text."
Isn't this why there was an Oral Torah? Because the text alone was insufficient?
But Scripture is not "in-arguably redundant, contradictory, incomplete as a simple text."
I think the point he was making is that we can't read the Bible like we're reading the operating instructions for a microwave. If it is the Ultimate Instruction for our salvation for all-time, then that would mean that the more we progress in our understanding of how the Universe works, the better able we are to interpret scripture.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have some pretty alarming disparities between them, if taken strictly literally. That's right at the top of the book!
What disparities?
In Genesis 1, Mankind was created after animals; in Genesis 2, before animals.
In Genesis 1, He made man and woman together; in Genesis 2, He made man, then later made woman.
Now, I've heard the apologetics. Many different versions of apologetics. And if a person can infer one apologetic, then all apologetic arguments are equally plausible interpretations.
But this is where hermeneutics comes into play - the idea being that the ancient languages did not have the words to describe God's messages, and so He used phrases that people in ancient times could understand; but in such a way that, as we progress and our language becomes more precise, the meanings would become clearer to us.
Genesis 1 is just explaining that he made both man and woman, and Genesis 2 clarifies what happened. Genesis 2 thus clears up any seeming contradiction.
Post a Comment