Does the Bible Tell Us to Take Everything in the Bible as LIterally Inerrant?

By -
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything..." -- Thessalonians 5:20-21

I'd say that is a "no."

Comments

  1. Anonymous5:13 PM

    Just curious, what version of the Bible are you reading from. I only ask because I only have a King James version, and the text is quite a bit different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah9:03 PM

    Joseph, just Google the phrase and you can find it. (I'm heading out and can't look at the moment.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. PH2:13 PM

    I'm not sure it makes a difference, but the Greek reads προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε. That is literally "prophecies [do] not despise," the word "prophecies" being the object rather than the subject of the verb.

    Paul appears to be saying that the Thessalonians should test those who come before them claiming to have the gift of prophecy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy10:12 AM

    I tried looking at various translations, and they didn't really help me decide the matter. But, I think Gene it's possible that you are totally misinterpreting what Paul is saying.

    I think (though I'm not sure) he is saying, "Don't dismiss prophecies. Go ahead and actually check if they are fulfilled, because they will be if you just open your eyes."

    For a similar thing, look at God talking about tithing in Malachi 3:10:

    10(A) Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby(B) put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open(C) the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.

    I can't find the exact translation that made me think of that passage, but I'm pretty sure I've read it where the Lord says "test me in this."

    Well clearly God isn't saying, "Don't assume you should literally believe my promises, because maybe I'll disappoint you."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more