 |
 |
Theology
|
"It is widely understood to mean literally 'the study of God'" |
Theology
Theology finds its scholars pursuing the understanding of and providing reasoned discourse of religion, spirituality and God or the gods.
The origin of the word theology comes from late middle English (originally applying only to Christianity) from French théologie,
from Latin theologia, from Greek: theologia, from theos or God or logos, "words", "cause", "sayings," or
"discourse" + suffix, "state of", "property of", "place of". It is widely understood to mean
literally "the study of God."
Theologians use philosophical analysis and argument to understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of a myriad of religious
topics. Theology might be undertaken to help the theologian understand more truly his or her own religious tradition, understand more
truly another religious tradition, make comparisons between religious traditions, defend a religious tradition, facilitate reform of
a particular tradition, assist in the propagation of a religious tradition, or draw on the resources of a tradition to address some present
situation or need, or for a variety of other reasons.
The word 'theology' has classical Greek origins, but was slowly given new senses when it was taken up in both Greek and Latin forms by
Christian authors. It is the subsequent history of the term in Christian contexts, particularly in the Latin West, that lies behind most
contemporary usage, but the term can now be used to speak of reasoned discourse within and about a variety of different religious traditions.
Various aspects both of the process by which the discipline of ‘theology’ emerged in Christianity and the process by which
the term was extended to other religions are highly controversial.
Biblical Inerrancy and Authority
Initial Classical Apologetics
"Theology" is the "study of God", so when we participate in such a study, then obviously,
the very existence of God has already been accepted by us as truth. If we are honest in our approach to the existence of God, through
the disciplines of classical apologetics, we need not fall victim to, and be guilty of pre-supposing that God exists through pre-suppositional
apologetic methods of reason. There is enough rational reasoning available to compel us to accept the existence of God as fact out of
necessity instead of assumption. (See the "Origins" page for a detailed breakdown
of this reasoning.) The reason that this is important is because any study of God must be based on the necessary existence of such a
being. After all, if God doesn't exist, then what would be the point of studying God or any subsequent communications to mankind from
God? It's not enough to merely "assume" or "pre-suppose" God's existence without good reason and rationale for doing
so if we are serious about any communication that God has given to mankind as being accurate and authoritative. Additionally, since God
exists necessarily, wouldn't it be rational to conclude that He would certainly reach out to His created creatures in a manner that was
accurate and authoritative? Would He even allow for any doubts as to the authority and accuracy of His communications to us?
Even though I haven't proved anything here about the inerrancy and authority of the the Bible, I wanted to point out the necessity of
His existence and the necessity of His accurate and authoritative communications to mankind in order to make possible, at least, the
idea that the Biblical Scriptures could be a valid candidate for these communications from God... Surely, God being God, would see to
it that His authoritative Word to mankind would be kept in tact and accurate through His providential and supernatural guidance, directing
His message through His inspired human agents of His divine revelation throughout the ages, if indeed the Biblical Scriptures are the
inerrant and authoritative "Word of God". There are, of course, many other ancient and modern documents that exist
that talk about God's will and purpose for mankind, but none of them pass the scrutiny and litmus tests that our Bibles have been submitted
to, regarding their literary authenticity and historical accuracy. Many in history have tried to minimize, disprove, or even destroy
the Biblical works, only to fail at the attempt or be ultimately converted to Christianity in the process as a result of their investigations
for truth! I find that most people who reject the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, reject the notion of God Himself because they
do not want to be accountable to anyone for their misbehavior.
Can the Biblical Scriptures be trusted as the inerrant and authoritative "Word of God" as our ultimate source of truth
and guidance?
To start with, it is important to know what the Bible claims about itself;
"(16) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (17) so
that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:16,17 - NIV)
While this verse of scripture doesn't prove anything in and of itself about the authenticity and authorship of the Bible being from God,
it does at least proclaim a bold self-statement as to its origin and authority. There are some who would argue that the Biblical Scriptures
are nothing more than a collection of creative writings by humans over the span of centuries and that its narratives and teachings are
merely the result of human opinion, human wisdom, and human imagination, never intended to be taken seriously or literally. This is an
extremely serious problem with unrecoverable implications and theological consequences! There would also be immense philosophical problems
with this view of the Scriptures! If the Biblical Scriptures are nothing more than the result of merely human ideas, and not the accurate
and authoritative Word of God, we would be left with absolutely nothing useful in the Bible, in terms of any divine direction from God!
There would be no reason for the Christian Church and its teachings to exist, because there would be no basis for it. Everything that
is taught about Judaism and Christianity is solely based and dependant on the reliable and accurate transmission of truth, spoken from
God through His chosen divinely inspired men as they penned the Biblical Scriptures under His sovereign supernatural guidance.
What is meant by Biblical "Inerrancy" is that errors of truth will not be found. What
is meant by Biblical "Infallibility" is that errors of truth will never be found! Some may claim that
part or most of the Biblical Scriptures are reliable, but accept the idea that some parts could be in error or is not one hundred percent
reliable. If that were true, then one would have to ask themselves which parts are truth and which are in error... How could we ever
know for sure which parts we could trust? We would find ourselves picking and choosing what parts we want to believe based on our biased
and prejudicial view of our own dogmatic opinions. Either the Biblical Scriptures are one hundred percent true and accurate or totally
worthless as any standard of truth! This is an " all or nothing" proposition because truth and error cannot co-exist
in the same context. Some may find this "black and white" perspective too rigid or inflexible, but truth should never be flexible
with error, or it is no longer truth. So if the Biblical Scriptures are not one hundred percent the authentic Word of God, and merely
human narrative, even in part, it would be nothing more than human dogma, worthless to anyone and everyone seeking to find the accurate
will and desire of God. Everything that we have learned about God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, Heaven and Hell,
marriage and divorce, right and wrong, angels and demons, sin, forgiveness, grace, etc., has its roots and basis in the Biblical Scriptures.
Biblical doctrine has permeated our lives more than we can even imagine! And there is no other recorded documentation that I know of
that even deals with the origins of the universe like the first book of the Bible ( Genesis)
does, because no one else but God was there during this time! In the book of Genesis, God gives us a detailed account of His creative
time-line of cosmic beginnings that can be found nowhere else but in the pages of the Bible!
The Dead Sea Scrolls and their significance to Biblical accuracy
"The 'Dead Sea Scrolls' are a set of ancient Jewish manuscripts from the Second Temple period. They were discovered over a period
of ten years, between 1946 and 1956, at the Qumran Caves near Ein Feshkha in the West Bank, on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. Dating
from the 3rd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D., the Dead Sea Scrolls include the oldest surviving manuscripts of entire books later
included in the biblical canons, including deuterocanonical manuscripts from late Second Temple Judaism and extrabiblical books."
( Source: Wikipedia)
Recent scientific studies suggest that parts of these scrolls may be even older than first believed, dating back even more than 2,000
years! These manuscripts contain material now considered to be part of the Hebrew Bible. Every book is represented among the Dead Sea
Scrolls, except the book of Esther. These are the oldest known copies of biblical works.
The major impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it validated the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures. Prior to the discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were dated around 920 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back
to around 100 B.C. With this gap of about a thousand years, some supposed there would be massive changes uncovered. This was not the
case, however, as the variances were of no significance. There have been opponents of Christianity that made allegations that Christians
had perverted the Old Testament text, introducing and rewriting prophecies to make it appear that there were Messianic prophecies which
Jesus fulfilled. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians had a difficult time proving that this did not happen, even
though the reality of such an undertaking would have been rejected by Jewish people everywhere and would likely be recorded in history.
Therefore, the major significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it verifies the stability of the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from
well before the birth of Jesus and Christianity, and on through modern times. We can be confident that the Old Testament we read today
has been accurately transmitted throughout history from at least a hundred years before the birth of Jesus!
The first conclusion from the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the Old Testament in our Bibles is reliable. The Old Testament in our Bibles is
translated from the Masoretic Text which dates to about a thousand years AFTER Christ. But the Dead Sea Scrolls are a full thousand years
older. Comparisons of the Masoretic Text to the Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over that thousand-year
period. The chief differences have to do with the spelling of words. That means that we now have proof that the Old Testament, and by
implication, our Bibles, has been accurately transmitted (copied) for more than 2,000 years. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude
that the Old Testament has also been accurately copied before the time of the Qumran community as well. This would therefore suggest
that God's divine direction and preservation has been at work all along to ensure the accurate and inerrant transmission of His Word,
despite human copying and translating. Humans, without sovereign and divine direction from God, are simply not capable of such accurate
and inerrant transference of this magnitude! It's very evident that the Bible has been supernaturally kept in tact because it was divinely
inspired, therefore infallible, therefore inerrant, therefore true and trustworthy!
Are all translations and versions of the Bible inerrant and reliable?
Because the Bible is not a single book but a complex arrangement of at least 66 books (Roman Catholic Bibles include another seven books
that Protestants do not recognize) written over many years by multiple authors, the question concerning versions can be very complicated.
There are many ancient manuscripts for each of the texts in the Bible, each needing careful translation into contemporary language. Since
the manuscripts we have available are nearly 98% identical (apart from inconsequential spelling differences), we could say that we really
only have one version of the Bible. The entire Bible has been translated into more than 700 languages, and parts of it have been translated
into over 3,000 languages. Some languages have only one translation of the Bible, while others have many. In fact, there are over 450
known versions of the Bible in English alone! Secular theologians, and even some Christian theologians may argue that while the original
Biblical manuscripts may have been without error, human errors have crept in through human copying and translation over the centuries,
leaving us with modern translations that are not error free. While it may be true that some spelling differences are present in modern
translations of the Bible, they are inconsequential in changing any truth transmitted and the core doctrines of scriptures have never
been altered! Some versions of the Bible are derived from a literal " Word-for-Word" methodology of translation, (e.g.
King James) while other versions are derived from a paraphrased " Thought-for-Thought" methodology of translation (e.g.
NIV). While both methods of interpretation are equally valid, one version of translation may be easier to understand for the common reader
than the other. While some theologians may argue that certain versions of the English Bible are more reliable or accurate than others,
no single version of the Bible will perfectly capture every thought or nuance communicated through the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic writing
in our available translated manuscripts. Translation from one language to another is always a difficult balancing act between word translation,
thought transmission, and and equally importantly, readability. Different versions approach these challenges differently, but this isn't
really a problem If we are willing to consult multiple versions for a deeper understanding of any given Biblical text in question, as
they will all transmit the same core truth in just slightly different ways, without compromising the integrity of the intended message.
So how can we prove rationally that the Bible is true?
All of the time and energy spent here referring to Biblical principles have been based on the premise that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures
(The Bible) is the standard by which truth is measured. This of course presupposes that the Scriptures are indeed the authoritative Word
of God, communicated without error to mankind. But how can we trust that the Scriptures are the accurate source of God's Word? Many have
tried to offer a compelling answer to this question but have fallen short philosophically in their methodology of proof. Dr. Jason Lisle
gives a very compelling presuppositional apologetic summary on the subject... ( Closing quote below:)
" The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it. The Bible is uniquely self-consistent
and extraordinarily authentic. It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ. It has been confirmed
countless times by archaeology and other sciences. It possesses divine insight into the nature of the universe and has made correct predictions
about distant future events with perfect accuracy. When Christians read the Bible, they cannot help but recognize the voice of their
Creator. The Bible claims to be the Word of God, and it demonstrates this claim by making knowledge possible. It is the standard of standards.
The proof of the Bible is that unless its truth is presupposed, we couldn't prove anything at all."
See his source page for the full apologetics on the subject: https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/how-do-we-know-that-the-bible-is-true/
>> PDF version available here <<
Why Do Christians Hold Such Different Interpretations of the Same Bible Text?
Same Verse, Different Interpretations
It is amazing how one given Bible verse can be interpreted so many different ways. There are, of course, examples of Biblical text that
can be interpreted different ways, and be justified in doing so. God's word is unique in this way. Sometimes, Biblical text is dynamic
in its meaning and implications. However, most of the time, when a verse of Scripture is interpreted in different ways, it is usually
because there is a bias from a presupposition already held that the reader tries to apply to a verse to confirm their own belief. There
is always a comfort in finding validation to what we believe to be true, especially when it comes from Holy Scripture. The danger, however,
is always that our bias and/or presuppositions will influence our interpretation of Scripture, rather than allowing the Scriptures to
influence our bias and/or presuppositions.
"Balanced" Interpretations?
There has been discussion among some Christian leaders encouraging readers to hold to a "balanced" interpretation
of any given scriptural text. This raises a few questions for me; (1) By what standards or criteria do we deem something as "balanced"?
(2) What presuppositions and/or bias is held by someone making the case for a given "balanced" interpretation? (3)
Does a balanced interpretation necessarily guarantee an accurate interpretation? This can be a problem because an assumption about being
"balanced" is being made here. The assumption would be that a "balanced" view is the correct view,
and that "balance" in general is a good thing to strive for. Some would argue that if we are "balanced",
we will satisfy the need to combine more than just one interpretation, so as to make it more palatable to a wider audience. However,
our ultimate goal here should be an interpretation that communicates truth, whether the interpretation is popular or not, or "balanced"
or not. The true interpretation is not always the "balanced" interpretation! If someone embraces an interpretation
of scripture that is clearly in error, should we then compromise on its real meaning in the name of being "balanced"?
Of course not!! Therefore, we should not concern ourselves so much with being "balanced" but rather on what the scriptures
says in context and in harmony with itself, despite what we want it to say. We cannot "balance" truth with error,
nor should we ever try to!
Presuppositions + Bias = Interpretations and Beliefs
Some of the different beliefs, views, and interpretations that we hold of the same Scripture, can unfortunately be the result of presuppositions
and bias that already exists somewhere, contrary to a Spirit-led correct biblical interpretation.
The reasons we tend to have presuppositions are (1) because we trusted someone who persuaded us to believe what they believe, (2) it
brings some comfort to believe a certain way, (3) we align ourselves with secular humanistic value systems of logic or reason based more
on philosophical assumptions rather than in taking the Scriptures at face value, (4) Pride—The unwillingness to admit that maybe
we are wrong, or, (5) some or all of the above.
The reasons we tend to be biased are (1) because we have presuppositions, and/or (2) we hold self-interest above the interests of God
or others.
We all have reasons for what we believe to be truth. I hope and pray that the way that we interpret the Scriptures is consistent with
the Scriptures themselves and based on the Sprit's leading, resulting in good Biblical exegesis, rather than in personal preference,
based on what we want to believe. We do not have that luxury.
|
|
|
|
