On Inerrancy

[ElfLord]

To me this information signifies what is found in the overall Biblical theme. That is how Israel progressed godward in her theological thinking, and mission to be able to bring forth Messiah into the world, and thus to work out the redemption of mankind.

Hick you seem to ascribe to a fuzzy velvety, wiggle graph interpretation of Innerancy that has been so watered down that it has in effect been rendered completely usless as a description.

Many Evangelicals also seem to violate this precise statement given here in the Chicago Statement of Bibilical Innerrancy.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

So earlier you violated this, when you pulled in other verses to some how resolve the discrepancy between Luke and Matthew.

So much for letting scripture interpret scripture!

[Calm]

:blush: ....breast feeding....

My husband's solution was to remove his glasses, probably the only time he was ever grateful for really poor vision.

[Calm]

A specific definition that is elaborated in an LDS to Ev interfaith set of terms is likely beyond the utility of this forum. Controversy comes into play here-- and nay sayers on each side interrupt the flow.

A discussion in the Pundit forum would allow for a less interrupted flow. Would you be willing?

[Calm]

Matthew and Luke did not revise Mark. That is, they did not take the Gospel of Mark and insert things into it or take things out of it to produce a new Gospel of Mark..

I have never been all that impressed with the argument that it was all okay to change the inerrant work of Mark as long as they put a different name on the changes....changes were still made to something that is claimed to be perfect and whole, without error. It is one thing to quote a work or even paraphrase it (though it seems foolish to paraphrase something that is perfect or without error as one runs the risk of introducing error), it is different to actually alter it. How can that lead to greater understanding or greater perfection...since the claim of inerrancy is applied to the altered version as well?

[Hick Preacher]

Hick you seem to ascribe to a fuzzy velvety, wiggle graph interpretation of Innerancy that has been so watered down that it has in effect been rendered completely usless as a description.

Many Evangelicals also seem to violate this precise statement given here in the Chicago Statement of Bibilical Innerrancy.

So earlier you violated this, when you pulled in other verses to some how resolve the discrepancy between Luke and Matthew.

So much for letting scripture interpret scripture!

There is gulf in understanding between us-- about meanings, applications, and interpretations. No sweat though- I appreciate your feedback.

Our world views are different enough to cause communicative bypassing. A person does not have to accept something like the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy to be an Evangelical Christian.

There is nothing wrong with pulling in readings of other Bible passages to interpret other difficult to understand or vague passages. Some Bible passages are like tweets-and take lots of context to understand.

[Hick Preacher]

A discussion in the Pundit forum would allow for a less interrupted flow. Would you be willing?

Yes-- in the near future. I am getting swamped with business matters at the moment.

[Rob Bowman]

Anakin,

First, do you remember the gentleman's name?

Second, I didn't say there were 5,000 complete manuscripts. I didn't even give a number. And by the way, the number of manuscripts is now getting close to 6,000.

Third, I'll take the word of textual scholars whose names we know and who have made their statements in published works over an anecdote about what an unnamed scholar said during a tour at Claremont.

Fourth, I don't know why you and everyone else here on the LDS side keeps claiming that inerrancy requires that every biblical manuscript read exactly the same way. If that were true, all it would take would be one prankster to make a copy of 3 John and change something to it (e.g., addressing it to himself instead of Gaius), and he would have "destroyed" the inerrancy of the Bible. (I can think of one or two guys here who would volunteer!) Is God really supposed to keep everyone from making any changes when copying any part of the Bible?

Fifth, I'm glad we can agree that the Bible is awesome and that we should be thankful to God for it!

Rob the individual I was speaking of was the Former Director Of The Anchient Biblical Manusript Center located in Claremont California. The Biblical manusripts from around the world have been and are been/being filmed/cataloged and preserved on microfish and put into a special air controlled vault. Individuals from the Anchient Biblical Manuscript Center and others at the School there travel around the world digitaly copying the manuscripts. So contrary to your statement he has examined them. He has in the past told myself and LDS missionaries I took to the center for his presentation to us that the percentage of 99.9% of all the manusripts agreeing is incorrect, the figure is close to 85%. By the way there are not 5,000 + complete manuscripts, they are pieces

ranging in size. Unfortunatly all the Biblibcal Manuscripts/Pieces we have do not read the same and in some profound ways that has been documented I understand. If one adhers to Staunch Biblical Inerrancy theb ALL of the Anchient Biblical Manuscripts would read exactly the same, but they do not. However what we have is Awesome and should be thankful To GOD for what we have.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

I have a simple question for you. Is it okay to create a new work, based on a work of scripture, and knowingly introduce errors into it?

I have never been all that impressed with the argument that it was all okay to change the inerrant work of Mark as long as they put a different name on the changes....changes were still made to something that is claimed to be perfect and whole, without error. It is one thing to quote a work or even paraphrase it (though it seems foolish to paraphrase something that is perfect or without error as one runs the risk of introducing error), it is different to actually alter it. How can that lead to greater understanding or greater perfection...since the claim of inerrancy is applied to the altered version as well?

[Vance]

Never mind.

I won't distract Rob.

He has a lot of issues yet to address.

[Anakin7]

Anakin,

First, do you remember the gentleman's name?

Second, I didn't say there were 5,000 complete manuscripts. I didn't even give a number. And by the way, the number of manuscripts is now getting close to 6,000.

Third, I'll take the word of textual scholars whose names we know and who have made their statements in published works over an anecdote about what an unnamed scholar said during a tour at Claremont.

Fourth, I don't know why you and everyone else here on the LDS side keeps claiming that inerrancy requires that every biblical manuscript read exactly the same way. If that were true, all it would take would be one prankster to make a copy of 3 John and change something to it (e.g., addressing it to himself instead of Gaius), and he would have "destroyed" the inerrancy of the Bible. (I can think of one or two guys here who would volunteer!) Is God really supposed to keep everyone from making any changes when copying any part of the Bible?

Fifth, I'm glad we can agree that the Bible is awesome and that we should be thankful to God for it!

Michael Phelps [A Baptist]. I believe he attended Wheaton or Moody Bible Institute. The 5000 + # is from Ev works I have purused through. Wow 6000 ?, Not complete manuscripts I take it, there are in thousands of pieces !. Inerrancy from my lights have every single jot and tittle read the same and a perfect GOD would not allow for any variation whatsoever. [Playing devils advocate here !].

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Bill Hamblin]

calmoriah,

I have a simple question for you. Is it okay to create a new work, based on a work of scripture, and knowingly introduce errors into it?

Rob, your argument is bogus. The question is not whether it is legitimate for a prophet to rework scripture into new scripture as you say Matthew and Luke did. Mormons have no problem with that. Joseph Smith did it.

The question is: what does that imply about inerrancy? You seem to think it implies nothing. But the fact that Matthew and Luke both feel free to change, delete and add to Mark indicates they did not view Mark as inerrant. Why would Matthew and Luke change Mark (and change it in different ways) if they viewed Mark's gospel as inerrant?

[ElfLord]

Fourth, I don't know why you and everyone else here on the LDS side keeps claiming that inerrancy requires that every biblical manuscript read exactly the same way. If that were true, all it would take would be one prankster to make a copy of 3 John and change something to it (e.g., addressing it to himself instead of Gaius), and he would have "destroyed" the inerrancy of the Bible. (I can think of one or two guys here who would volunteer!) Is God really supposed to keep everyone from making any changes when copying any part of the Bible?

Perhaps you should address that question to your side of the fence...

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Let's assume Luke wrote his Gospel knowingly wording things in a different way than what was in the Gospel of Mark, which we will assume (as you are assuming) that Luke had in its present canonical form. We have a limited number of choices here:

1. Luke considered something in Mark in error and that's why he worded it differently.

2. Luke regarded something in Mark as correct and chose to introduce an error into his own work.

3. Luke considered something in Mark as correct but chose to word his presentation differently, not intending to contradict Mark, but inadvertently doing so.

4. Luke considered something in Mark as correct but chose to word his presentation differently, not intending to contradict Mark, and what Luke wrote is not contrary to Mark, just different.

I understand that the first three options entail a denial of inerrancy. However, the fourth option does not. Your argument amounts to asserting that any difference between Mark and Luke cannot be explained according to the fourth option. And that's just not so.

Let's start with a simple example. Only Mark includes the short pericope about the young man who ran away from Gethsemane naked (Mark 14:51-52). Suppose Luke chose deliberately to omit this pericope. How does his omitting it entail a denial of inerrancy? Omitting it does not entail denying that the event Mark reported happened. Luke is not contradicting Mark. He is not denying what Mark says. He is not saying Mark is in error. He is simply choosing not to include that pericope. How is this difference between Mark and Luke evidence against inerrancy?

Rob, your argument is bogus. The question is not whether it is legitimate for a prophet to rework scripture into new scripture as you say Matthew and Luke did. Mormons have no problem with that. Joseph Smith did it.

The question is: what does that imply about inerrancy? You seem to think it implies nothing. But the fact that Matthew and Luke both feel free to change, delete and add to Mark indicates they did not view Mark as inerrant. Why would Matthew and Luke change Mark (and change it in different ways) if they viewed Mark's gospel as inerrant?

[Vance]

Let's start with a simple example. Only Mark includes the short pericope about the young man who ran away from Gethsemane naked (Mark 14:51-52). Suppose Luke chose deliberately to omit this pericope.

This situation has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Why the red herring?

How does his omitting it entail a denial of inerrancy? Omitting it does not entail denying that the event Mark reported happened. Luke is not contradicting Mark. He is not denying what Mark says. He is not saying Mark is in error. He is simply choosing not to include that pericope.

This situation has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Why the red herring?

How is this difference between Mark and Luke evidence against inerrancy?

How is it in any way related to the issue at hand? It isn't.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Bill asserts that any omission by Matthew or Luke of something in Mark proves inerrancy is false. So in fact my example is directly relevant to his criticism.

[stemelbow]

Rob:

Bill asserts that any omission by Matthew or Luke of something in Mark proves inerrancy is false.

Bill:

But the fact that Matthew and Luke both feel free to change, delete and add to Mark indicates they did not view Mark as inerrant.

I don't think you have heard/read Bill correctly. Time to reconsider. Perhaps Bill has some examples that fit better than the example you gave, but no need to misrepresent.

love, stem

[Vance]

Vance,

Bill asserts that any omission by Matthew or Luke of something in Mark proves inerrancy is false. So in fact my example is directly relevant to his criticism.

You are not paying attention. That doesn't represent Bill's argument at all.

[Hick Preacher]

Hick,

This was intresting... from that link.

How could God "breathing on" Matthew some how miss its fulfillment in Jeremiahs time?

Matt2: 16

[Bill Hamblin]

Your argument amounts to asserting that any difference between Mark and Luke cannot be explained according to the fourth option. And that's just not so.

Nope. You still don't get it, though most other people seem to. So I'm not going to try to explain it any more.

[maklelan]

This opinion has been voiced as a view of a number of persons on this thread. But I disagree- there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke's doctrine concerning these things. This is evident when one examines other parallel teachings from Matthew, and Luke. In such an examination the Luke and Matthew passages are harmonized.

As far as methods go Matthew 5 is not the best lone passage to compare in juxta to Luke 16. Matthew 11 (below) provides information that harmonizes what some here perceive to be an inconsistency between Matthew 5 and Luke 16.

Matthew 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

17 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

That the prophets and the law prophesied until John in no way indicates the law is no longer in force. Certainly you don't believe that the Old Testament did not prophesy concerning any events subsequent to John's ministry.

Luke 16: 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Note-

Matthew 7: 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Obvious meaning of Matt 7: 12

( Do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you-- this is a summary or fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets--btw- this is how and why the Law is harder to pass away than the heavens and the Earth as mentioned by Jesus in Matt 5:17

Matt 5:17 does not say it is difficult for heaven and earth to pass away, nor do vv. 18 or 19. V. 18 simply says the law will not pass away until after heaven and earth pass away. Luke is the only one who says it's difficult for the law to pass away. I would point out also that Christ's commandment in Matt 7:12 would indicate the law and prophets are still very much in force. If they were not, why would he command everyone to fulfill their quintessence?

the actual intent of the Law remains being interpreted by the rules that came into play after John- and with the gospel.)

Here you're imposing a univocal view of disparate scriptural texts, which remains unwarranted unless you can show they are manifestly not multivocal.

Note:

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

But this is just Paul's rhetoric. Of course he's going to assert the law is upheld. He's no longer Jewish if he doesn't. Why do you think he let himself be scourged several times? So he could assert that he was still very much a Jew. The law doesn't need to be followed, though. He argues himself against the requirement for Gentiles to keep the law of Moses. Look at Rom 2:26. If an uncircumcised person lives the other requirements of the law, his uncircumcision will be "regarded as circumcision." The law is written in their hearts, not on stone (Rom 2:14-15). In other words, they don't have to obey the requirements of the law because they fulfill the spiritual purpose of the law. Look at Rom 2:29: "real circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal." Additionally, one must presuppose the univocality of scripture in order to assert that Paul's opinion concerning the law has any bearing whatsoever on our reading of Matthew's statement. There's hardly been any argument put forth in support of that supposition.

Note:

Acts 24: 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Believing the prophecies does not equal following the law. Additionally, Paul followed the law specifically so he could assert his rights as a Jew. See Acts 15:28-29: For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." Paul's position obviously doesn't apply to Gentiles.

[Hick Preacher]

Note the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

If the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy should be considered with this Hermeneutics document.

http://www.origins.org/articles/00site_chicago.html

Added-- BYU's Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement

http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/robinson-and-the-chicago-statement/

[Vance]

Added-- BYU's Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement

http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/robinson-and-the-chicago-statement/

This will be sad news for Rob.

For his part, Blomberg doesn

[urroner]

Added-- BYU's Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement

http://summatheologica.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/robinson-and-the-chicago-statement/

In HWD [How Wide the Divide], Robinson is attempting to draw a parallel between the eighth article of faith and the five qualifications as explained by Blomberg, not the entire Chicago Statement. Robinson

[noel00]

Interesting thesis on this issue

https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/515/9/Jeffery%20Oldfield%20PhD%20thesis.pdf

[Hick Preacher]

Mak why doubt that The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are NOT univocal texts when were written by the same human author?

Luke 16:16-17 Written by Luke-

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Acts of the Apostles 24:14 Written by Luke-

14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: