Can it be true but not factual?

[RamistThomist]

I was talking with a good friend of mine a few minutes ago and I noticed that he was reading a Marcus Borg book. WIthout accepting everything that Borg asserts, he said, "The point of the book is not whether it is factual but whether it is true." He said that some parts of the bible are not meant to be taken literally, that their truthfulness does not depend on their factuality. He went on to say, somewhat inconsistently, that what actually mattered as far as historicity was concerned was the Resurrection. Praise God he believes in that! But how would you all critique this statement:

[b:c2d08ab359]"The point of the book is not whether it is factual but whether it is true."[/b:c2d08ab359]

?

 

[Learner]

I have never heard of Mr. Borg . ( just the dangerous Borgs of Star Trek -- the Next Generation ) . His statement is nonsense . Words are being evacuated of their meaning . It's like many political liberals who rant about America being unilateral with our efforts in Iraq . We have spearheaded it , but not alone .

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

[quote:8beb2b585c]"The point of the book is not whether it is factual but whether it is true." [/quote:8beb2b585c]

It is true that the Bible contains within itself different forms of literary style and uses language that is not always to be taken at face value (I speak of the differences between historical and poetic writings in the Scriptures, for example, as well as anthropomorphic descriptions of God). However, it is not true that whether something is factual is irrelevant. Truth is grounded in reality and if something is not factual, not accurate, not real, then it is false and no longer truth.

One often hears this kind of reasoning, as already noted, from liberals and from the neo-orthodox who love to take words and manipulate their meanings in the service of some cause other than the truth. This issue, I think, most directly attacks the historicity of Genesis and other such parts of the Bible, and must be defended vigorously.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Borg believes in the resurrection? Hmm... I suggest you read again. I was under the impression that he believed in the "resurrection" but that Christ was "resurrected" in that his message lived on in the church.

This view of his is a lie - that the message (or significance of it, more precisely) is not related to the historicity of it.
Hmmm. Let the reader decide. I don't know about you, but I don't want to base my life off of something that isn't true. For instance, I don't base my life on the story of George Washington and the cherry tree... even though it teaches a morally significant lesson.

 

[daveb]

[quote:4a78af9fef="Learner"]I have never heard of Mr. Borg .[/quote:4a78af9fef]

Borg is a member of the liberal Jesus Seminar crowd (the ones that vote on whether or not Jesus said something in the NT). He denies the bodily resurrection of Christ (in his book "The Meaning of Jesus") and should be avoided at all costs.

 

[RamistThomist]

What I meant was that my friend beleives in the Resurrection; Borg does not. Check out the amazon reviews on [i:717a5f8f43]Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?[/i:717a5f8f43]. It is a transcript version of the debate between Bill Craig and Marcus Borg, I think.

 

[py3ak]

Jacob,

I have to agree that some things which are not factual are true --Dostoyevsky comes to mind, along with most excellent literature.

However, if a book represents itself as factual (as the Bible does) and then were inaccurate, it would not be true either. In a fictive work truth and factuality do not stand or fall together --in a book of any other kind, they do. The Bible presents itself as quite the opposite of a work of fiction, and therefore your friend's statement is inapplicable.

 

[JohnV]

In a very strict sense 1+1=2 is true but not factual. It doesn't count anything but numbers that are abstractions. But it cannot be true outside of the realm of facts. Counting numbers would be meaningless unless things needed counting in fact. The resurrection is a factual thing, and its meaning is also a sign. It cannot mean anything if it does not refer to the fact. What meaning can be signified if the fact of the resurrection was omitted? It would be reduced to the same effect as a fairy tale, for they do not convey facts, but they do convey truths to be believed. There is nothing to verify anything but the self-evident morals of a fairy tale; but the resurrection is verified by the fact that it happened, its historical certainty. There are no fairies to believe in, but there is a God to believe in.

So the truth is more important, to be sure, but it is not less true than the fact.

The point of the book may have been not that it was factual but that it was true, but that can in no way diminish the fact that it is true and the truth that it is a fact. A denial of the fact results necessarily in a denial of its truth. So the statement concerning the point of the book is an admission that it denies the truth of the resurrection.

[quote:b13b976431]1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.[/quote:b13b976431]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

CBS is arguing that their expose on the Bush National Guard memos is not factual, but accurate. The memos can't be authenticated, they admit, but they insist that the essense of what they say is correct. In other words, don't bother me with the facts, I'm trying to report the news!!!

 

[Craig]

[quote:da542b4cc6]CBS is arguing that their expose on the Bush National Guard memos is not factual, but accurate. The memos can't be authenticated, they admit, but they insist that the essense of what they say is correct. In other words, don't bother me with the facts, I'm trying to report the news!!!
[/quote:da542b4cc6]
CBS does reporting much like the way I wrote papers in highschool...I often got smiley faces for my stories...but deductions for them not being based in reality.

Glad to see I could have been Dan Rather!

 

[RamistThomist]

[quote:fd35fa4fa2="Craig"]
CBS does reporting much like the way I wrote papers in highschool...I often got smiley faces for my stories...but deductions for them not being based in reality.

Glad to see I could have been Dan Rather![/quote:fd35fa4fa2]

 

[JohnV]

Jacob:

I'd Rather you were Jacob 'dan Rather.

 

[RamistThomist]

[quote:d24bbd389e="JohnV"]Jacob:

I'd Rather you were Jacob 'dan Rather.[/quote:d24bbd389e]

No, No, NO!!!!!!!!!!!
The proposition of truth vs. Factuality was not my idea; I was merely relaying it for discussion

 

[JohnV]

Sorry, Jacob:

I got so carried away with the play on words, "Jacob have I loved..." that I forgot that it was Craig, not Jacob, that said it.

I guess it was true, just not factual.

 

[RamistThomist]

All is fogiven