Oriental Orthodoxy and Biblical Infallibility

Severian

So I know that we OO believe the Bible is infallible on matters of faith, practice, and salvation. But is it also infallible/inerrant on matters of science, history, and geography? It has been said before that some Fathers said that God purposely placed contradictions in the Biblical text so that the believer can search for the greater spiritual meaning behind it. Is this the view accepted by the entire Church?

EDIT: As much as possible, I would like primary references from either modern OO Theologians or ancient Patristics.

Thanks

Severian

Nothing?

Stavro

It is better to start out by pointing out the alleged errors in the Scripture and see whether they are really errors, empty attacks or hard to understand aspects of the Scripture that could be explained and justified in some other manner or another.

My firm belief is that there are no errors in the Scriptures.

But there might be aspects that are not within the scope of the message of the Bible. The Bible is not a scientific book that needs to be compared against the latest scientific findings to judge its value. It uses the contemporary language and knowledge of the time to convey a message of salvation. The same approach for historical data included on the Bible.

Whether the stay of the Hebrews in Egypt was 400 or 430 years, it depends on the context. The Holy Spirit is not a historian concerned with accuracy but rather with the message of salvation associated with both lengths of years.

If the Scripture describes the heaven as a "carpet stretched out" , it is using the contemporary "science".

Severian

^What are your thoughts on supposed interpolations into the Bible, like 1 John 5:7?

minasoliman

I'm too lazy to pull this out, but look for Origen's "Philocalia", which was believed to be a compilation by St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil the Great.  In it Origen teaches his method of exegesis, where you'll find him comparing Biblical interpretation to human flesh, soul, and spirit.  The literal interpretation is likened to the flesh, the moral interpretation is likened to the soul, and the allegorical interpretation is likened to the spirit.  Allegory, he teaches, is spiritual, and it is the most important truth.  All of Scripture is allegory, but not all of Scripture needs to be literal or moral.  In fact, it is possible that some of the Mosaic laws were not literally followed as well as some of history might not have literally happened, but the fiction is interwoven with the fact to paint a complete and perfect allegory that is centered on our spirituality and on Christ and the NT.  This is has come to be known as the Alexandrian school of exegesis.

The Antiochian school of exegesis sees this method as an overkill and developed as a result of disagreeing with the Alexandrian method, which was majorly supported.  They believe not everything needs to be allegory, but that all of these stories were meant to be taken at face value in their literal and moral perspectives.  If there is some contradiction between gospels, it only shows the reliability of its factual basis of the gospel stories, that the evangelists did not copy from each other.  So Antiochians might accept that there might be some discrepancies and some allegory, but not everything needs to be allegory, and there isn't a whole lot that is "fiction".

The Church of Alexandria obviously favored the Alexandrian method in the first centuries, but when Arabic Islamic thought dominated Egypt, the Church evolved to protect the Scriptures as inerrant in comparison to the Koran, and used a more Antiochian method.  Today, there seems to a mix of both methods.

minasoliman

Here's the Philocalia:

http://tertullian.org/fathers/origen_philocalia_02_text.htm

In the end, it seems Origen would have defined Biblical infallibility as a complete allegorical message that reveals to us the mysteries of our spirituality in light of the New Testament.  St. John Chrysostom would have probably given a more simple definition, where it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and where, notwithstanding the minute details, the whole of the Scriptures are factual.

imikhail

[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159960#msg159960 date=1347848339]
So I know that we OO believe the Bible is infallible on matters of faith, practice, and salvation. But is it also infallible/inerrant on matters of science, history, and geography? It has been said before that some Fathers said that God purposely placed contradictions in the Biblical text so that the believer can search for the greater spiritual meaning behind it. Is this the view accepted by the entire Church?

EDIT: As much as possible, I would like primary references from either modern OO Theologians or ancient Patristics.

Thanks


Read the article "Inspiration" by Fr. Shenouda Maher.

Severian

[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13702.msg159988#msg159988 date=1347934505]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159960#msg159960 date=1347848339]
So I know that we OO believe the Bible is infallible on matters of faith, practice, and salvation. But is it also infallible/inerrant on matters of science, history, and geography? It has been said before that some Fathers said that God purposely placed contradictions in the Biblical text so that the believer can search for the greater spiritual meaning behind it. Is this the view accepted by the entire Church?

EDIT: As much as possible, I would like primary references from either modern OO Theologians or ancient Patristics.

Thanks


Read the article "Inspiration" by Fr. Shenouda Maher.
Could you please give it to me?

mrpete33

For whats its worth I would like to quickly state that my opinion is that we need to stop turning the Bible into what it isnt. Turning Genesis into a science textbook is a huge error. Turning a Psalm into a geology text is wrong. The scriptures are infallible and inspired BUT that doesnt mean we can read further into the text than what was intended to be understood and ignore what we see from science or what we see from modern research.

imikhail

[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159990#msg159990 date=1347936250]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13702.msg159988#msg159988 date=1347934505]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159960#msg159960 date=1347848339]
So I know that we OO believe the Bible is infallible on matters of faith, practice, and salvation. But is it also infallible/inerrant on matters of science, history, and geography? It has been said before that some Fathers said that God purposely placed contradictions in the Biblical text so that the believer can search for the greater spiritual meaning behind it. Is this the view accepted by the entire Church?

EDIT: As much as possible, I would like primary references from either modern OO Theologians or ancient Patristics.

Thanks


Read the article "Inspiration" by Fr. Shenouda Maher.
Could you please give it to me?


Here is is ...

Severian

[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159968#msg159968 date=1347897854]
^What are your thoughts on supposed interpolations into the Bible, like 1 John 5:7?

Biboboy

Agape,

Not all truth is contained in Scripture, but Scripture contains all truth.

Severian

[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg160053#msg160053 date=1348195270]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159968#msg159968 date=1347897854]
^What are your thoughts on supposed interpolations into the Bible, like 1 John 5:7?

Severian

[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg160074#msg160074 date=1348367617]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg160053#msg160053 date=1348195270]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13702.msg159968#msg159968 date=1347897854]
^What are your thoughts on supposed interpolations into the Bible, like 1 John 5:7?


And 1 Timothy 3:16?

Joshuaa

Hi Severian,
                    I don't think there is anything that isn't out of line or wrong with the bible. To me it is lineal, the alfa and omaga, from start to finish. What happens inbetween concerning our church and the bible is also lineal in which we are guided through the invocation of the Holy Spirit in regards to the connection of his inspiration to our church fathers.

  John the baptist wasn't the messiah that the people thought was to come but we know who it was, again lineal.