What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

You know, this whole thing seems quite confusing and circular. How do you or anyone for that matter quote scripture for the basis of your practice yet you deny the authority of the scriptures? Why bother with the bible as your reference point? How can you use scripture as your supporting argument if you don't even believe this verse?

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It doesn't say some scripture......it says ALL scripture. Just throw the whole thing out and deny it. I have more respect for atheists that simply do not believe it. At least they aren't trying to modify it to suit their own needs, they simply don't believe it.

It's not a matter of belief or disbelief. It's not a matter of throwing it out or denying it. It's a matter of reading what it says and seeing it for what it is. That text was written before the NT was considered to be "scripture," so it clearly can't be alluding to the NT in any way. It's as if you think that Jesus had the NT to base his ministry upon. It's as if you think the bible dropped out of the sky one day in its present form, which simply isn't the case. The bible took centuries to come into the form we have now. Centuries. Scripture is authoritative and a basis for our practice. But it is not absolute. We use scripture, to be sure, but we also look to Tradition (that is, the extra-biblical writings and other oral communications of the church), and reason. Because the bible is part of the whole Tradition of the Faith.

Just what constitutes "all" scripture? Do we include Thomas? The Didache? The pseudopigrapha? The apocrypha? Which canon? The Protestant? The RCC? The EO? The Ethiopian? The Coptic? Which? The thing is, both Christianity and the bible are far more fluid concepts than you give them credit for.

 

[lovemuffin]

You know, this whole thing seems quite confusing and circular. How do you or anyone for that matter quote scripture for the basis of your practice yet you deny the authority of the scriptures? Why bother with the bible as your reference point? How can you use scripture as your supporting argument if you don't even believe this verse?

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It doesn't say some scripture......it says ALL scripture. Just throw the whole thing out and deny it. I have more respect for atheists that simply do not believe it. At least they aren't trying to modify it to suit their own needs, they simply don't believe it.

I agree (as I suggested in one of the other threads) that some of the differences in perspective arise from different ways of thinking about scripture and the nature of spiritual authority in Christianity.

However, I'd suggest you are reducing the question to a false dichotomy when you imply the choice is either between defining authority in the way you are trying to do so or else denying the bible any authority at all. A lot hinges on how "authority" may be understood, and if you reflect on questions relating to how one comes to know and accept the validity of that authority, as well on questions of how one knows that some particular interpretation or hermeneutical key is the "authoritative" one, I think you will come to see that there do in fact exist difficulties with a presentation as simple as the one you've made above, even from a Christian perspective which grants primary authority to the scriptures.

I'll give a couple examples:

1) The verse you cited in favor of biblical authority actually never mentions authority at all, but only inspiration. Prima facie, "all scripture is inspired and is profitable" is not equivalent to "scripture is the only authority", in fact it's not even equivalent to saying that scripture is authoritative, unless you redefine authoritative, but you appear to be reading the latter reading into it. The difference between the plain meaning of the text in isolation and the meaning you are giving it within the context of your larger views highlights the problem of interpretation. Your reading is plausible to you given your other assumptions, but those assumptions are not only grounded in the text, but in much later interpretations, i.e those of the protestant reformation.

On reflection, it is clear that the statement "the bible is an absolute authority", in practice, can only ever mean "the bible as interpreted by such and such a person is an absolute authority". In other words, because the text both can be and always has been read in so many ways, it is a misattribution of agency to place the authority in the text, when it really resides with the interpreter. In fact, when the Catholic or Orthodox churches speak about the authority of the church over against the idea of sola scriptura, it's mostly just a recognition of that fact. The multitude of protestant congregations who all claim to adhere to sola scriptura but arrive at different understandings of various texts should highlight the point. One way or another, you have to address the problem of hermeneutics. It is not enough for a text to be infallible, the interpreter must also be infallible or the "infallibility" of the text is not very useful.

2) The verse in question also is interesting in that while it attributes inspiration to "scripture", the epistle itself would not, from the perspective of the author and audience at the time, have been considered scripture. Using your model of inspiration and authority, you can't cite the epistle to Timothy to justify the authority of the epistle to Timothy, because when the epistle speaks of scripture it is not speaking of itself, and no 1st century reader would have heard it as doing so.

And so, as with the problem with an authoritative interpretation needing a grounding in an authoritative interpreter, so also the demarcation between the authoritative text and other non-authoritative texts requires some human authority which draws the line. The Bible, both the older Hebrew scriptures as well as the N.T., is a collection of different texts written by different authors at different times. Surely we cannot say that the only difference between an inspired and authoritative text and one that is not is that the former declares itself to be such, because there are many such texts which Christians reject. Some human authority, even if inspired by the Holy Spirit, has to recognize and declare that this text is scripture and that text is not. So again the authority must be exercised by people, it is impossible for it to be self-validating apart from any human consideration.

What I would suggest is that while, implicitly, you think of the authority of the scriptures and the line of demarcation as revolving around "inspiration" as per Timothy, such a view cannot really grant any absolute authority to the text in and of itself because of the problems I just stated. No matter how absolute that authority is in theory, in practice it is always conditioned and limited by the authority and fallibility of the human interpreters and human authorities who must decide what texts will be called scripture, and what they mean.

The other interesting point about all of this is that the ancient church did not in fact view biblical authority in terms of inspiration, but rather in terms of apostolic authorship. Inspiration and authority were not considered equivalent, and various church fathers refer to non-canonical text also as being inspired. It is for this reason that, even to the present, orthodoxy and catholicism value the writings of saints as inspired even though they are non-canonical.

The primary criterion used by the 4th century church in finalizing a canon of the N.T. was apostolic authorship or authority. Texts supposed to have been written by apostles, or by close companions of apostles, were considered authoritative. The reason for this is simple: authority was grounded in experience, that being the experience of knowing Christ. Paul's apostleship should tell us something also about the nature of that authority, since in his case there is no question of him ever knowing Jesus before the crucifixion. His apostleship is based on his mystical experience of the risen Christ, which the church came to accept because of the evidence of his works, despite his previous prosecution of the church. His authority arose first from his experience of God and grace granted to him by God, and was confirmed by the acceptance of the Church as a whole. The authority lies in the experience and in the church which evaluates and interprets it, and not in any text itself. This mode of understanding is already seen in one of the citations I provided from Ignatius of Antioch, but can be found explicitly in Irenaeus, Tertullian and others. All of whom of course took the authority of the scripture very seriously, but understood it differently than the way you understand it now.

 

[sassysam29]

It's not a matter of belief or disbelief. It's not a matter of throwing it out or denying it. It's a matter of reading what it says and seeing it for what it is. That text was written before the NT was considered to be "scripture," so it clearly can't be alluding to the NT in any way. It's as if you think that Jesus had the NT to base his ministry upon. It's as if you think the bible dropped out of the sky one day in its present form, which simply isn't the case. The bible took centuries to come into the form we have now. Centuries. Scripture is authoritative and a basis for our practice. But it is not absolute. We use scripture, to be sure, but we also look to Tradition (that is, the extra-biblical writings and other oral communications of the church), and reason. Because the bible is part of the whole Tradition of the Faith.

Just what constitutes "all" scripture? Do we include Thomas? The Didache? The pseudopigrapha? The apocrypha? Which canon? The Protestant? The RCC? The EO? The Ethiopian? The Coptic? Which? The thing is, both Christianity and the bible are far more fluid concepts than you give them credit for.

Use your argument on this man and many like Him. Gods divine hand can be seen in the preservation of the scriptures. These are the men I revere, the ones that the "church" was headhunting, the men that gave the ultimate price so that I could hold that book. This one man alone holds more merit and more credibility than all the desert mothers and fathers, seminary schools, extra biblical writing, oral communications could EVER hold. Below I pasted a brief summary of Tyndale.

How many Bibles do you have in your house? For most of us, Bibles are easily accessible, and many of us have several. That we have the Bible in English owes much to William Tyndale, sometimes called the Father of the English Bible. 90% of the King James Version of the Bible and 75% of the Revised Standard Version are from the translation of the Bible into English made by William Tyndale, yet Tyndale himself was burned at the stake for his work on this day, October 6, 1536.
Back in the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe was the first to make (or at least oversee) an English translation of the Bible, but that was before the invention of the printing press and all copies had to be hand written. Besides, the church had banned the unauthorized translation of the Bible into English in 1408.
Over one hundred years later, however, William Tyndale had a burning desire to make the Bible available to even the common people in England. After studying at Oxford and Cambridge, he joined the household of Sir John Walsh at little Sudbury Manor as tutor to the Walsh children. Walsh was a generous lord of the manor and often entertained the local clergy at his table. Tyndale often added spice to the table conversation as he was confronted with the Biblical ignorance of the priests. At one point Tyndale told a priest, "If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost."
It was a nice dream, but how was Tyndale to accomplish this when translating the Bible into English was illegal? He went to London to ask Bishop Tunstall if he could be authorized to make an English translation of the Bible, but the bishop would not grant his approval. However, Tyndale would not let the disapproval of men stop him from carrying out what seemed so obviously God's will. With encouragement and support of some British merchants, he decided to go to Europe to complete his translation, then have it printed and smuggled back into England.
In 1524 Tyndale sailed for Germany. In Hamburg he worked on the New Testament, and in Cologne he found a printer who would print the work. However, news of Tyndale's activity came to an opponent of the Reformation who had the press raided. Tyndale himself managed to escape with the pages already printed and made his way to the German city Worms where the New Testament was soon published. Six thousand copies were printed and smuggled into England. The bishops did everything they could to eradicate the Bibles -- Bishop Tunstall had copies ceremoniously burned at St. Paul's; the archbishop of Canterbury bought up copies to destroy them. Tyndale used the money to print improved editions!
King Henry VIII, then in the throes of his divorce with Queen Katherine, offered Tyndale a safe passage to England to serve as his writer and scholar. Tyndale refused, saying he would not return until the Bible could be legally translated into English. Tyndale continued hiding among the merchants in Antwerp and began translating the Old Testament while the King's agents searched all over England and Europe for him.
Tyndale was finally found by an Englishman who pretended to be his friend but then turned him over to the authorities. After a year and a half in prison, he was brought to trial for heresy -- for believing, among other things, in the forgiveness of sins and that the mercy offered in the gospel was enough for salvation. In August 1536, he was condemned; on this day October 6, 1536 he was strangled and his body burned at the stake. His last prayer was "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." The prayer was answered in part when three years later, in 1539, Henry VIII required every parish church in England to make a copy of the English Bible available to its parishioners.

 

[sassysam29]

Tyndale posed as a threat to the church because they could no longer elevate themselves above the common man and control them by means of authority and money. Crazy that the two words Tyndale translated differently were church, which he translated to assembly and charity which he translated love. Imagine that.........control and money were the things He was disturbed by.

 

[sassysam29]

And he died because of it.

 

[lovemuffin]

For what it's worth, I would clarify that my opposition to sola scriptura or your model of authority shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of every practice of 16th century Catholicism in Europe. Nor does it entail a rejection of everything said or believed by the reformers. I expect that to nearly every modern catholic indulgences seem corrupt (to say nothing of the Orthodox), and there's no doubt that the reformers had legitimate complaints about the excesses of church authority of the time, or about the need for a greater emphasis on scripture. But the disagreements we have now shouldn't be reduced to picking either Tyndale or Pope Leo X.

I think this digression is a bit of a non-sequitur. It is possible to value the conviction and courage of Tyndale and hold certain aspects of medieval Catholicism in disdain while yet disagreeing with some modern views about the nature of biblical authority.

 

[sassysam29]

Tyndale posed as a threat to the church because they could no longer elevate themselves above the common man and control them by means of authority and money. Crazy that the two words Tyndale translated differently were church, which he translated to assembly and charity which he translated love. Imagine that.........control and money were the things He was disturbed by.

"There is nothing new under the sun".

 

[sassysam29]

For what it's worth, I would clarify that my opposition to sola scriptura or your model of authority shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of every practice of 16th century Catholicism in Europe. Nor does it entail a rejection of everything said or believed by the reformers. I expect that to nearly every modern catholic indulgences seem corrupt (to say nothing of the Orthodox), and there's no doubt that the reformers had legitimate complaints about the excesses of church authority of the time, or about the need for a greater emphasis on scripture. But the disagreements we have now shouldn't be reduced to picking either Tyndale or Pope Leo X.

I think this digression is a bit of a non-sequitur. It is possible to value the conviction and courage of Tyndale and hold certain aspects of medieval Catholicism in disdain while yet disagreeing with some modern views about the nature of biblical authority.

Tyndale is just ONE.....so many more gave their lives. They didn't die so that we would put more emphasis on the scriptures. They died clinging to Gods word for me and you

 

[Windwalker]

Did you know that before and after casting out demons, we prayed? How can we cast out demons if we are not in the presence of God?

It's all psychological in nature. The power of suggestion. However, my purpose is not to examine and dissect these modern "deliverance" ministries in this thread, nor do I feel compelled to dissuade you of your chosen approach to religion. My responses in this thread are a defense against your misinformation about those who practice meditation or self-identify as mystics, and your attempts to convince them to abandon what works extremely well for them in their relationship with God, because you don't understand or believe in it, from your point of view as a "demon-slayer", or whatever self-identification you assume. This marks a sharp contrast between our approach to faith and that of your own.

I believe that any experience of yours you think higher than my experience should have the point of reference. If your point of reference is not the Word of God itself, then anything can be inserted as long as you're satisfied and felt spiritually higher than others.

This is the single focus of difference between your approach and ours, and where you simply will be unable to move forward in your thinking to see others points of view. I've touched on it before, but I believe it goes straight over your head as you simply cannot grasp an understanding that is conceptually beyond your current mode of thinking. I'll go into it anyway for the sake of others who read this. This is also the same point of departure for the earlier participants in this thread such as InChrist. All my focus will be on this single point going forward.

You spoke before and again later in this response from you that there needs to be a balance between experience and scripture (or an external authority or standard). I in fact do not disagree with you. But when I point out that you need to have experience to balance out and help inform HOW you read that external authority, you in fact chaff against that. In all your responses, including this one, it is quite clear that "balance" between experience and scripture is a full subjugation of experience to scripture. Not balance. Rather all experience must be judged by scripture as the sole authority. That again, is not "balance" at all. That is in fact a complete imbalance.

Those who take this imbalanced approach, such as the others in this thread who have voiced objection to the practice of meditation elsewhere as well as here, often will cite scriptures supporting their aversion to the inner subjective experience that "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" I have encountered this use of this verse to support "trusting the Bible" instead of what their own inner voices say, again, and again, and again, and again. Every time, and this time is no exception to the rule, I hear those who are afraid to trust themselves, and are in effect absolving themselves of any responsibility. "God says this in His Word! It's not me thinking this," and so forth are the types of responses that 'get them off the hook'. This is of course a true problem, and one which unless address will result in not only a psychological imbalance, but a spiritual imbalance as well.

That very verse in Jeremiah they cite is ripped out of context, stopping at the expression of dismay by the poet at the challenge of understanding their own heart and motivation. Those who cite that verse stop there and say "See the Bible says we should not look within, because we can't trust anything that comes out of it, that we must submit to an external authority, which is the Word of God!" But firstly, as I have pointed out unequivocally, that is itself a fallacy as the Bible is only as good as the one reading it! And if they have a 'deceived heart', they will read it through the lense of that heart. If they read it with a heart and mind of fear, they will see fear. And so forth.

But secondly and more to the point, what follows in Jeremiah in the next verse is that, "I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind". It is in meditation practice that you access that searching of the Spirit into the dark recesses of your heart and mind, and that all is brought to Light! That is exactly, precisely what happens. It is not "our efforts" as you falsely state, again and again, but it is through surrendering our searching to the Light of Spirit that we allow that penetrating sight of God to bring to light these things we hide from ourselves. In other words the practice of meditation is us allowing "The Lord [to] search the heart and examine the mind"! This is the exact, 100% opposite of what you think meditation practice is. In other words, you are flatley misinformed and wrong.

So those who fear that they cannot 'trust the heart", actually should practice meditation so they gain exposure to themselves through the Light of God shining into those dark places they fear to look. They fear trusting the heart, but the entire thrust of the NT is to teach one to hear that voice within and trust it. Those who turn solely to external authorities are in fact still hiding from that Light that examines the heart. It is indeed an act of faith to enter into meditation because you must not be afraid, but trust that God is there and will not let you fail as that which is hidden is brought to light for you to see.

Okay, so now that I have established that, here comes that actual balance. And by balance, I mean actual balance, not 98% Bible and 2% experience. I mean a give and take, inform and be informed equal exchange of the heart and the mind, of spirit and reason.

As I pointed out clearly that as someone matures and grows, how they read the Bible will reflect that growth and maturity, just as how someone who is immature their reading of scriptures will reflect that immaturity. This can be seen in any church in any corner of any street, let alone fit what is obvious through any sort of actual research. So what there is in fact a "relationship" between one's own development and how one sees and understands the nature of truth itself. No one can say, "It not me saying this, it's right here in God's word", because what they are reading is tied to their own personality, their own stage of development, their own culture, their own awareness of things, and so forth. It's not "God's word" independent of them, but a reflection of their own relationship to God that is seen. It is not independent of them. It cannot therefore be an external authority that dictates the truth that all must fall in line with. That cannot, and does not in fact exist anywhere, in anything. There is a relationship between "truth and facts".

I wrote this in another thread some time back I wish to share here and I'll highlight in bold the parts that someone should not miss in reading the whole of this. It was written in response to those who believe if they can just get back to the facts of history about Jesus that that will inform them about what is true and what is not. This applies as well as getting to the "truth of the Bible", as if that something exists independent of us somehow anyone can actually access:

This is a great error of our age to think the way you get to truth is to get back to what "actually happened." We don't understand the relationship between truth and facticity. This is an especially detrimental view when it comes to religious truths. We cannot understand it until the unitive eye of the heart opens, which provides a clarity of understanding of that relationship. In other words, even if you had a video recording of the historical Jesus, this still does not begin to open the truth of the events except that your own eyes of your heart can hear and see through that, that a certain level of maturity is present to understand that truth. At that point, the "facticities" are not the point, but props. The props don't tell the truth. The heart does.

We see and interpret through the lens of our current set of eyes we see through, and the myth of the given, that some truth lays "out there" for us to discover is a complete fallacy. When it comes to a spiritual understanding, this requires that unitive eye of the heart to see that relationship between truth and fact, a truth unbound to history. A timeless truth, that is seen again and again and again. These truths are timeless truths spoken in a language that the Unitive eye of the heart can see, but the separate ego mind interprets as facts, reduced instead to objective propositions one can just observe and make logical conclusions about and "believe" or disbelieve in. That is not what these truths are, and are therefore not understood as some objective observer.​

If you are in true balance, working on the inner person, exposing the soul to the light of God to examine, with God and through God, our own hearts, then as it grows in understanding in that Light, how we read the Bible because illuminated by that inner Light that has been allowed to grow! That moves that relationship between 'truth and facticity' forward, rather than being stuck as something see as existing wholly outside of us.

The balance on a true spiritual path, one which actively includes the inner work, is to not just go on that experience only, but to take that experience of Spirit and move it to mind, and let what it sees in the world, in scripture, in others, feed itself back to the Heart. It moves from Spirit to mind and heart, and from heart and mind to spirit. It's up and down, back and forth. To be seeking experience alone, is to be out of balance. To be "trusting God's word", without inner experience, is to be out of balance. This is the truth of what I believe, and what I practice. Anything else you say about this which does not reflect that is false.

If I have a supernatural experiences like yours, and prioritized it as my prime importance in my spirituality; without my point of reference or basis (like the Scripture), would you think that another additional experiences will be entertained? Of course yes, Isn't it? Then it adds until to a point it becomes your doctrine and practices.
Now, the other way around is, if I'm prioritized the Scripture rather than experiences then I will be aware of any experiences that may come in balance with the Scripture.

You just contradicted yourself. If you prioritize your reading of scripture, your experience is not in balance with scripture. It's imbalance if you prioritize one over the other. Your own words speak the truth of your own imbalance, and the imbalance you think others need to follow.

If that will be the case, there should be a standard. You cannot hide anything that is real. Reality is truth and truth is reality.

You my friend, are a product of Modernity! Again, there is a relationship between truth and facticity, and that relationship includes the subjective heart and mind and soul. If the latter is anemic, how strong of a relationship do you think there will be? I can tell you from what I see. It's a pathology, an imbalance, and a spiritual dysfunction.

My understanding of the word "sound" means "correct" and not distorting/adding nor diminishing the Scriptures. Regarding your newly opened terminology "postmodernism" and "Integral Context," if you would like to share it more thoroughly, you may set another thread for us to discuss. I shared mine, I think you have a lot to share based on your experience as you considered it as higher than mine. My question is: What is it?

Too involved for this thread. Just do a Google search for the terms.

Hmmm. It is again the STANDARD. If you are a housekeeper in a hotel, then I applied your logic of setting your own style or ways of cleaning disregarding the hotel standards that was given to you. Did you think you followed the standards or not?

The Standard is Spirit. You are conformed to the image of Christ, not the image of someone's interpretation of the Bible, which is what all perspectives of the Bible are - interpretations. The Bible does not interpret itself. Christ is not the Bible.

In regard to spirituality, if we have no concrete standards to follow and follow your ways, you'll get confuse until you embraced all religions in the world as your faith. No direction. Jesus say He is the way, the truth and the life. He said to carry your own cross and become dependent on Him.

And here we are back at the crux of the problem. Your words reflect that. "Concrete". There it is right there, go no further! Concrete. You want Spirit to be concrete. Spirit is called spirit because it is like 'breath', like 'wind', not like a slab of concrete.

This of course brings to mind the verse in the NT which speaks, "And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts". Notice the sharp contrast here between the Spirit of the living God, and "concrete standards", those chiseled into hard stone? I think you are missing the entire thrust of what the spiritual life actually means. This is very clear contrast between external standards one conforms to, namely the law, as in legalistic standards, and that of internal, interior living, dynamic standards of Spirit itself. It's very clear to me. I can give you many more examples of how they approached this, in contrast with the legalistic approach of "concrete standards", those chiseled in stone, or those written in ink on the pages of the Bible as this "concrete standard".

Let me briefly explain something to you. I view the Bible as a guide, not a "concrete standard". A guide is quite different than a law. The Spirit of Truth will guide you," says Jesus. Not lay down the law you have to "obey" in order to know righteousness. Everything Jesus taught was about internal realization, through which the mind would be able to discern truth from untruth. It is not by following "concrete standards", which as I have pointed out are only as good as the one interpreting them. The entire thrust of the NT is about a spiritual awakening, being guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth. The standard is Spirit, not the Bible. And that standard of Spirit, is "living", not written in ink or chiseled into a "concrete standard of truth".

This path is the harder path to follow. Indeed. You have to let go of what you cling to for your sense of security, your "trust in the Bible", being one of them. And the reason for that is, because it is a deception to yourself that you say that what you read, how you understand with your human mind, reflects the truth of Spirit itself, which can only be know by Spirit itself. The true worshippers, says Jesus, worship in Spirit and in truth. The two go hand in hand. Without the illumination of Spirit, the Bible is dead. It is a lifeless slab of concrete that people project their own selves upon, and call it "God's word".

Ill-founded? what is ill to follow and prioritize the Scriptures? Since the start of our discussion, you rarely cite and posted Scriptures here to support your message.What actual knowledge you would like for me to give to you? You may cite some so I may know what it is.

Thanks

I explained all of this above, but as far as me citing Scripture to support my message, I firstly in fact do, but I believe hearing the words of experience carries more weight than someone just merely quoting scripture. Any hack can quote the Bible, but not anyone can speak from experience. There was a difference between Jesus' words and that of the Pharisees quoting scripture. He spoke from a living knowledge of Spirit. From this then, Scripture begins to have true meaning, rather than lifeless words parroted by the religious. Ditto.

 

[sojourner]

Use your argument on this man and many like Him. Gods divine hand can be seen in the preservation of the scriptures. These are the men I revere, the ones that the "church" was headhunting, the men that gave the ultimate price so that I could hold that book. This one man alone holds more merit and more credibility than all the desert mothers and fathers, seminary schools, extra biblical writing, oral communications could EVER hold. Below I pasted a brief summary of Tyndale.

How many Bibles do you have in your house? For most of us, Bibles are easily accessible, and many of us have several. That we have the Bible in English owes much to William Tyndale, sometimes called the Father of the English Bible. 90% of the King James Version of the Bible and 75% of the Revised Standard Version are from the translation of the Bible into English made by William Tyndale, yet Tyndale himself was burned at the stake for his work on this day, October 6, 1536.
Back in the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe was the first to make (or at least oversee) an English translation of the Bible, but that was before the invention of the printing press and all copies had to be hand written. Besides, the church had banned the unauthorized translation of the Bible into English in 1408.
Over one hundred years later, however, William Tyndale had a burning desire to make the Bible available to even the common people in England. After studying at Oxford and Cambridge, he joined the household of Sir John Walsh at little Sudbury Manor as tutor to the Walsh children. Walsh was a generous lord of the manor and often entertained the local clergy at his table. Tyndale often added spice to the table conversation as he was confronted with the Biblical ignorance of the priests. At one point Tyndale told a priest, "If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost."
It was a nice dream, but how was Tyndale to accomplish this when translating the Bible into English was illegal? He went to London to ask Bishop Tunstall if he could be authorized to make an English translation of the Bible, but the bishop would not grant his approval. However, Tyndale would not let the disapproval of men stop him from carrying out what seemed so obviously God's will. With encouragement and support of some British merchants, he decided to go to Europe to complete his translation, then have it printed and smuggled back into England.
In 1524 Tyndale sailed for Germany. In Hamburg he worked on the New Testament, and in Cologne he found a printer who would print the work. However, news of Tyndale's activity came to an opponent of the Reformation who had the press raided. Tyndale himself managed to escape with the pages already printed and made his way to the German city Worms where the New Testament was soon published. Six thousand copies were printed and smuggled into England. The bishops did everything they could to eradicate the Bibles -- Bishop Tunstall had copies ceremoniously burned at St. Paul's; the archbishop of Canterbury bought up copies to destroy them. Tyndale used the money to print improved editions!
King Henry VIII, then in the throes of his divorce with Queen Katherine, offered Tyndale a safe passage to England to serve as his writer and scholar. Tyndale refused, saying he would not return until the Bible could be legally translated into English. Tyndale continued hiding among the merchants in Antwerp and began translating the Old Testament while the King's agents searched all over England and Europe for him.
Tyndale was finally found by an Englishman who pretended to be his friend but then turned him over to the authorities. After a year and a half in prison, he was brought to trial for heresy -- for believing, among other things, in the forgiveness of sins and that the mercy offered in the gospel was enough for salvation. In August 1536, he was condemned; on this day October 6, 1536 he was strangled and his body burned at the stake. His last prayer was "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." The prayer was answered in part when three years later, in 1539, Henry VIII required every parish church in England to make a copy of the English Bible available to its parishioners.

What Well Named said above ^^^. And you need to cite your sources if you're going to copy and paste text from somewhere else.

 

[sassysam29]

What Well Named said above ^^^. And you need to cite your sources if you're going to copy and paste text from somewhere else.

It's a pretty well known, widely accepted, historically documented, seminary taught, Christian account of tyndale, but I stand corrected my lord, (curtsy)

 

[sassysam29]

Use your argument on this man and many like Him. Gods divine hand can be seen in the preservation of the scriptures. These are the men I revere, the ones that the "church" was headhunting, the men that gave the ultimate price so that I could hold that book. This one man alone holds more merit and more credibility than all the desert mothers and fathers, seminary schools, extra biblical writing, oral communications could EVER hold. Below I pasted a brief summary of Tyndale.

How many Bibles do you have in your house? For most of us, Bibles are easily accessible, and many of us have several. That we have the Bible in English owes much to William Tyndale, sometimes called the Father of the English Bible. 90% of the King James Version of the Bible and 75% of the Revised Standard Version are from the translation of the Bible into English made by William Tyndale, yet Tyndale himself was burned at the stake for his work on this day, October 6, 1536.
Back in the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe was the first to make (or at least oversee) an English translation of the Bible, but that was before the invention of the printing press and all copies had to be hand written. Besides, the church had banned the unauthorized translation of the Bible into English in 1408.
Over one hundred years later, however, William Tyndale had a burning desire to make the Bible available to even the common people in England. After studying at Oxford and Cambridge, he joined the household of Sir John Walsh at little Sudbury Manor as tutor to the Walsh children. Walsh was a generous lord of the manor and often entertained the local clergy at his table. Tyndale often added spice to the table conversation as he was confronted with the Biblical ignorance of the priests. At one point Tyndale told a priest, "If God spare my life, ere many years pass, I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou dost."
It was a nice dream, but how was Tyndale to accomplish this when translating the Bible into English was illegal? He went to London to ask Bishop Tunstall if he could be authorized to make an English translation of the Bible, but the bishop would not grant his approval. However, Tyndale would not let the disapproval of men stop him from carrying out what seemed so obviously God's will. With encouragement and support of some British merchants, he decided to go to Europe to complete his translation, then have it printed and smuggled back into England.
In 1524 Tyndale sailed for Germany. In Hamburg he worked on the New Testament, and in Cologne he found a printer who would print the work. However, news of Tyndale's activity came to an opponent of the Reformation who had the press raided. Tyndale himself managed to escape with the pages already printed and made his way to the German city Worms where the New Testament was soon published. Six thousand copies were printed and smuggled into England. The bishops did everything they could to eradicate the Bibles -- Bishop Tunstall had copies ceremoniously burned at St. Paul's; the archbishop of Canterbury bought up copies to destroy them. Tyndale used the money to print improved editions!
King Henry VIII, then in the throes of his divorce with Queen Katherine, offered Tyndale a safe passage to England to serve as his writer and scholar. Tyndale refused, saying he would not return until the Bible could be legally translated into English. Tyndale continued hiding among the merchants in Antwerp and began translating the Old Testament while the King's agents searched all over England and Europe for him.
Tyndale was finally found by an Englishman who pretended to be his friend but then turned him over to the authorities. After a year and a half in prison, he was brought to trial for heresy -- for believing, among other things, in the forgiveness of sins and that the mercy offered in the gospel was enough for salvation. In August 1536, he was condemned; on this day October 6, 1536 he was strangled and his body burned at the stake. His last prayer was "Lord, open the King of England's eyes." The prayer was answered in part when three years later, in 1539, Henry VIII required every parish church in England to make a copy of the English Bible available to its parishioners.

http://www.christianity.com/church/...am-tyndale-strangled-and-burned-11629961.html

 

[sojourner]

It's a pretty well known, widely accepted, historically documented, seminary taught, Christian account of tyndale, but I stand corrected my lord, (curtsy)

no need to be untoward. Take a look at the forum rules (#7). Just trying to be helpful.

 

[sassysam29]

Sojourner, question...IF the bible could be 100 percent proved as our absolute authoritative truth, would you accept it as such, or would the harsh realities of it make you reject it?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner, question...IF the bible could be 100 percent proved as our absolute authoritative truth, would you accept it as such, or would the harsh realities of it make you reject it?

Again, see above. the bible, by definition, cannot be proven such. It depends too much on interpretation. As my seminary NT prof used to say, "The bible has knot stood the test of time because it is true, but because it lends itself to multiple interpretations." The authority lies, not with the texts, themselves, but within the curating community.

 

[sassysam29]

Again, see above. the bible, by definition, cannot be proven such. It depends too much on interpretation. As my seminary NT prof used to say, "The bible has knotted the test of time because it is true, but because it lends itself to multiple interpretations." The authority lies, not with the texts, themselves, but within the curating community.

Nothing I can say except if it weren't for Christ crucified and my full and undivided awareness of the indwelling Holy Spirit, I would SO be an atheist.

 

[sassysam29]

And that is in no means meant to be offensive. I'm just saying that it is truly just so overwhelmingly complicated and confusing that I can't imagine the onseeers muse

 

[lovemuffin]

Sojourner, question...IF the bible could be 100 percent proved as our absolute authoritative truth, would you accept it as such, or would the harsh realities of it make you reject it?

No reasonable person will stipulate that, even if P could be proven, they would still reject P (for any P)

However, part of the problem is it's not even clear that "proof" is a concept that can be coherently applied to the Bible as a whole. For example, I would assume that you would start by treating the Bible as a collection of distinct texts, and each text as a collection of propositions. "100% proved as true" would mean that every single proposition in every single text were independently proven. This is already problematic because it's not clear that, as a literary genre, such a representation of the texts is adequate. For example, how will we consider a proposition like the following: "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." (Prov 26:11) Is the statement true or false? What would a proof look like? It's not clear that "proof" even applies, or a correspondence theory of truth. What would a proof of the verity of the statement look like? Clearly not the same as a historical proof that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. "God is love" will be its own can of worms.

Then there is still the interpretation problem which we keep bringing up, but I'll make it more concrete:

In the preceding paragraph I took for granted that the proper truth condition to apply to the resurrection was an historical one. In other words, I took it for granted that the proper way of interpreting verses related to the claim of the resurrection is that they are either true as a matter of a literal historical event, or else they are false. It's probably fair to say that this is as uncontroversial of an assumption about interpretation as possible, within the broad Christian tradition. Should we assume that any proposition in any of the biblical texts which appears to have a possible historical truth condition must also be interpreted in such a fashion? If so, then rather than wondering whether we would accept a proven bible, you should be wondering what you will make of a bible that has been proven not to be entirely true, using this approach, because taken as historical claims, things like the garden of Eden, the great flood, and the Exodus narrative are as certainly disproven as any historical proposition ever will be. If we then decide to interpret these passages in some other way, perhaps allegorically as Augustine approached the creation myth of Genesis, then you have already reached a point where it is clear that it is not a question of proving that the Bible is true, but of finding an adequate interpretation, raising all the questions of the authority of the interpreter that have been raised previously.

 

[sojourner]

Nothing I can say except if it weren't for Christ crucified and my full and undivided awareness of the indwelling Holy Spirit, I would SO be an atheist.

Well, that's the kind of thing that happens when one focuses too much on the bible as a concrete and absolute ground of faith.

 

[sassysam29]

Well, that's the kind of thing that happens when one focuses too much on the bible as a concrete and absolute ground of faith.

Actually, that's what happens when I focus too much on a chat forum you are very intelligent and in days gone by I would have actually been moved by that intellect, but really, nothing compares to the power of God and His word in my life