On Inerrancy

[Hick Preacher]

This will be sad news for Rob.

Certain key words and phrases could be found in certain autographs, but oveall believing that the Bible text is accurate has nothing to do with the idea that each word as we see it now, or was ever a word for word record of a dictation from God.

This is evident in many places for example Jesus Himself is cited as making paraphrases adding interpolations into Deut. 6:13 when answering Satan.

Matthew 4:10

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

( likewise in Luke 4:8 )

[Vance]

Certain key words and phrases could be found in certain autographs, but oveall believing that the Bible text is accurate has nothing to do with the idea that each word as we see it now, or was ever a word for word record of a dictation from God.

This is evident in many places for example Jesus Himself is cited as making paraphrases adding interpolations into Deut. 6:13 when answering Satan.

Matthew 4:10( likewise in Luke 4:8 )

So, where did this doctrine of inerrancy come from?

Fabricated out of nothing?

[Vance]

Interesting thesis on this issue

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

Right from the abstract.

In 1978 a group of evangelical philosophers and theologians held a meeting to decide what the definitive statement on the doctrine of inerrancy would be.

I shall refrain from comment on this sentence at this time.

Almost three decades later this term is still used with a sense of confusion and the doctrine is no

less controversial. In fact, it still is responsible for the division of departments in many

evangelical institutions of higher education in North America.

No comment at this time.

[Vance]

More;

A great battle rages today around biblical infallibility among evangelicals.

To ignore the battle is perilous. To come to grips with it is necessary. To

fail to speak is more than cowardice; it is sinful. There comes a time when

Christians must not keep silent, when to do so is far worse than to speak and

risk being misunderstood or disagreed with. (Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan: Edinburgh, 1976, p. 26.)

And,

To many of these evangelicals it is a defining doctrine and it is what differentiates them from their Christian brothers and

sisters.

And,

. . . the doctrine of inerrancy is still a doctrine that most American evangelicals see a need to confirm, but are not quite sure of what philosophical and theological presuppositions are involved in such a confirmation.

[Hick Preacher]

So, where did this doctrine of inerrancy come from?

Fabricated out of nothing?

Vance, here is a very informative www page on the topic that may shed light toward answering your query.

I have not studied it all but you can access it at:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm

Here are some abstracts from this page...

Definition of Inerrancy

Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences

.

The Historical Argument

Those who reject inerrancy argue that this doctrine is an innovation, primarily of the Princeton theologians in the nineteenth century. Throughout the centuries the church believed in the Bible's authority but not its total inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy grew out of an apologetic need. Classical liberalism and its growing commitment to an increasingly radical biblical criticism made the orthodox view of Scripture vulnerable. Therefore, the Princeton theologians devised the doctrine of total inerrancy to stem the rising tide of liberalism. This represented a departure from the views of their predecessors in the orthodox tradition.

[Vance]

Vance, here is a very informative www page on the topic that may shed light toward answering your query.

I have not studied it all but you can access it at:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm

Here are some abstracts from this page...

.

So it appears to be a rather recent fabrication.

[maklelan]

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-

Acts of the Apostles 24:14 Written by Luke-

I've already discussed the distinction between believing a set of scriptures and believing the law of Moses must still be obeyed. Modern Christian inerrantists also believe everything in the law and the prophets, but they don't believe they are obligated to obey the law of Moses.

[Hick Preacher]

I've already discussed the distinction between believing a set of scriptures and believing the law of Moses must still be obeyed. Modern Christian inerrantists also believe everything in the law and the prophets, but they don't believe they are obligated to obey the law of Moses.

Yes it you want to look no further than an isolated set of words in Matthew 5 and Luke 16 in a KJV or a modern translation I suppose you can say the above.

In the two texts a distinction in believing that a set of teachings were sent by God ( which will last for this human aeon until the coming of a new heaven and Earth), and believing how they should be believed and applied from one dispensation to another are indeed being pointed out in Matthew 5 and Luke 16. Yet all the details of what the exact nature of these distinctions and/or application are not spelled out completely in Matthew 5, Luke 16 or Acts 24:14. Even though the details were not given in these test verses if viewed alone, it is evident that the Gospel of the Kingdom aka

[Hick Preacher]

So it appears to be a rather recent fabrication.

Critics of the specific sets of ideas about Bible accuracy, that have been structured into what is now called "Inerrancy", point to this modern version as a modern fabrication. Yet the fundamental idea that the scriptures are inspired and preserved by God as an ancient belief.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

I had written: "Bill asserts that any omission by Matthew or Luke of something in Mark proves inerrancy is false." You took exception, quoting the following statement from 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.

You commented:

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.

I don't think I've misrepresented Bill. In the statement above, he includes the fact that Matthew and Luke felt free to "delete" things from Mark as proof that Matthew and Luke "did not view Mark as inerrant."

Now, if Bill agrees with me that an omission by Matthew or Luke from something in Mark does not imply that Matthew or Luke viewed Mark as errant, I will be happy to hear that and we can move on to other types of differences among the Gospels.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

Too bad.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Regarding a blog article on Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, you wrote:

This will be sad news for Rob.

I have no idea why.

[stemelbow]

stem,

I had written: "Bill asserts that any omission by Matthew or Luke of something in Mark proves inerrancy is false." You took exception, quoting the following statement from 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.

You commented:

I don't think I've misrepresented Bill. In the statement above, he includes the fact that Matthew and Luke felt free to "delete" things from Mark as proof that Matthew and Luke "did not view Mark as inerrant."

"And" is inclusive. If Matthew and Luke left out some very important parts, like Jesus being the Son of God, or something, then you would have a point regarding Bill's point. But I really don't think that's what Bill is saying. It seems apparent he is alluding to the combination of changing, deleting and adding to things (since that is what he said) that Mark said regarding particular quotes/stories/teachings. He did not merely suggest that Matthew and Luke did not believe in inerrancy as evidenced by the idea that they decided to leave out some words here or there. He seems pretty clear that is it a combination of the three that demonstrates the evidence. I think he makes a good point.

Now, if Bill agrees with me that an omission by Matthew or Luke from something in Mark does not imply that Matthew or Luke viewed Mark as errant, I will be happy to hear that and we can move on to other types of differences among the Gospels.

Why move on, when he clearly was regarding the combination of the differences as his evidence? You seem to attempt to make Bill's point about any of the three types of differences as his evidence. That's simply not what he said. But, Bill's out, it appears, so whatever, at this point.

love,

stem

[maklelan]

Yes it you want to look no further than an isolated set of words in Matthew 5 and Luke 16 in a KJV or a modern translation I suppose you can say the above.

I want to determine what the verses mean on their own and then see how the context either alters that meaning or refines it. A reading of the text that moves in that direction cannot help but see conflict between Matthew and Luke. The only reading that undermines my conclusion is one that presupposes univocality and inerrancy. Without presupposing it, it's absolutely precluded. This is why the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy says that putative errors in the text must not be thought of as errors, because some day they'll be shown not to be errors. In other words, the Bible can only be error free if we begin with the assumption that it is error free and refuse to let the data compromise that assumption.

In the two texts a distinction in believing that a set of teachings were sent by God ( which will last for this human aeon until the coming of a new heaven and Earth), and believing how they should be believed and applied from one dispensation to another are indeed being pointed out in Matthew 5 and Luke 16.

Matthew doesn't say "this set of teachings was sent by God and will last for this human aeon." He says the law will remain in effect until heaven and earth pass away. You're taking an argument from another scripture and trying to massage Matthew into some kind of harmony with it. That's bad exegesis any way you slice it. Matthew says it's in force until heaven and earth pass away. Luke says it was in force until John came. There's no way around their fundamental disagreement.

Yet all the details of what the exact nature of these distinctions and/or application are not spelled out completely in Matthew 5, Luke 16 or Acts 24:14.

That's because neither text is meant to be a doctrinal exposition. They're rhetoric. Doctrine is largely subordinate to the rhetorical goals of the text.

Even though the details were not given in these test verses if viewed alone, it is evident that the Gospel of the Kingdom aka

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

Rather than debate Bill's meaning, since he has at least for now bowed out of the discussion, let's discuss your view, assuming you are adopting what you argue is Bill's view as your own. I do not see how a combination of changing, deleting, and adding material impinges on inerrancy unless the combination of differences results in substantive contradictions in intended meanings.

Earlier in this thread, Bill had claimed that the mere fact that Jeremiah added new material after rewriting the material on the burned scroll (Jer. 36) proves that the original scroll was not inerrant. Here Bill assumed that any additional material implied that the other text was errant. By this reasoning, if Matthew adds anything to his Gospel that wasn't in Mark, he is repudiating the inerrancy of Mark. You seem to recognize that this isn't an adequate critique. Jeremiah could add something to a text without calling into question the truth of anything in that text. You also agree with me that merely omitting something that is in someone else's text (e.g., Matthew and Luke omitting the pericope of the young man who ran away naked in Gethsemane) isn't evidence against inerrancy. So in principle, neither having something another text lacks nor lacking something another text has entails the errancy of that other text. Does combining these two types of differences, though, entail or imply errancy? I don't see how.

This leaves changes that are neither simple additions or subtractions. For example, Matthew changes some sayings found in Luke to read "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of God." That is a change in wording but not a change in the substantive meaning of those statements. Matthew and Luke have much of the same sayings material that in Matthew is collected all in one place (the Sermon on the Mount) while in Luke is scattered throughout his narrative. Some of Matthew's sayings material is not in Luke, and vice versa. Is the combination of such differences evidence of errancy? I don't think so. None of the Gospel writers claims that his sayings material is exhaustive of everything Jesus said; none claims that he is presenting Jesus' sayings material in their precise original geographical and chronological setting (and Matthew transparently is not doing so); none claims he is providing the ipsissima verbi of the Lord Jesus.

Again, does combining the "additions," "subtractions," and "changes" discussed above entail or imply errancy? I don't see how.

[stemelbow]

stem,

Rather than debate Bill's meaning, since he has at least for now bowed out of the discussion, let's discuss your view, assuming you are adopting what you argue is Bill's view as your own. I do not see how a combination of changing, deleting, and adding material impinges on inerrancy unless the combination of differences results in substantive contradictions in intended meanings.

Earlier in this thread, Bill had claimed that the mere fact that Jeremiah added new material after rewriting the material on the burned scroll (Jer. 36) proves that the original scroll was not inerrant. Here Bill assumed that any additional material implied that the other text was errant.

I think that's a rather different case. If writings are considered inerrant as the pen, or writing implement, jots down the words, then one wonders why additional words are added when the original author is trying to recreate a text... I suppose that's more of a wonder then a proof--ya know a piece of evidence added to the rest. If Isaiah decided to re-write his texts would he also add material that he originally didn't include? I don't know. An inerrantist might have to conclude "no", or at least "he didn't have any additionar material to add/say because we don't have any records of any additional material from him", but that would only be an assumption. It seems to me that Bill's point is inerrancy does not appear to be the attitude of not only Jeremiah but other biblical authors--not so much that this example proves inerrancy a false idea per se.

By this reasoning, if Matthew adds anything to his Gospel that wasn't in Mark, he is repudiating the inerrancy of Mark.

I don't think that there is a parallel here, so much. Either Jeremiah was inspired to write it the first time, creating an inerrant portion of scripture, or he was inspired to make additions thereby displaying that he did not find the initial writing to be inerrant--it needed something additional. In the case of Matthew and Mark, they are two separate inspired leaders. Thus, simple additions by matthew are possible without repudiating the inerrancy of Mark. When the other types of varationss are inherent in both, thus changing some teachings or stories, then it seems much more obvious that Matthew does not consider what mark wrote as inerrant. It seems more plausible, under such consideration, that matthew considers his telling more likely, more complete, more accurate than mark's. That is assuming matthew is aware of Mark's before he writes his own--assuming Markan priority.

You seem to recognize that this isn't an adequate critique. Jeremiah could add something to a text without calling into question the truth of anything in that text. You also agree with me that merely omitting something that is in someone else's text (e.g., Matthew and Luke omitting the pericope of the young man who ran away naked in Gethsemane) isn't evidence against inerrancy. So in principle, neither having something another text lacks nor lacking something another text has entails the errancy of that other text. Does combining these two types of differences, though, entail or imply errancy? I don't see how.

I don't think you have clearly understood me. Hopefully reading the above helps.

love,

stem

[noel00]

Karl Barth does not seem to be an inerrantist. However his theology seems to have converted others. Stanly Hauerwas writes

"By the time I had got to college, I had begun to read and had decided that most of what Christians believed could not be credible. So I became a philosophy major at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. It was by reading philosophy that I discovered that I did not know enough about Christianity to know if it was true or not. So I went to Yale Divinity School not to study for the ministry but to find out if the stuff was true. God help me, I fell in love with theology, and in particular the theology of Karl Barth. I have now spent a lifetime thinking about God."

[Hick Preacher]

Mak comments

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

I'm afraid I still don't understand you, or at least don't see a cogent objection to inerrancy. If Jeremiah created an inerrant text, and then re-created that same inerrant text to which he then added additional statements, I don't see a problem. I gave a simple example earlier. If Jeremiah's original scroll had said, "God is going to judge the king in Jerusalem," and then in his replacement scroll he wrote, "God is going to judge the king in Jerusalem, and destroying a scroll will not change that fact," the added words do not in any way imply that the original scroll was errant. To say that the text "needed something additional" is somewhat of a prejudicial way of stating things. If it "needed something additional" to be correct, that would be one thing. If it "needed something additional" to be complete or up-to-date, that would be another. The former implicitly denies inerrancy; the latter does not. Inerrancy does not require completeness or exhaustiveness.

As for the Synoptics, again, we would need to look at specific differences to determine if they are consistent with inerrancy or not. If Matthew rephrases something so his readers will understand it better, that does not mean that Mark was wrong, but that Matthew deemed Mark's wording less understandable to Matthew's readers. Inerrancy does not deny such differences.

I think that's a rather different case. If writings are considered inerrant as the pen, or writing implement, jots down the words, then one wonders why additional words are added when the original author is trying to recreate a text... I suppose that's more of a wonder then a proof--ya know a piece of evidence added to the rest. If Isaiah decided to re-write his texts would he also add material that he originally didn't include? I don't know. An inerrantist might have to conclude "no", or at least "he didn't have any additionar material to add/say because we don't have any records of any additional material from him", but that would only be an assumption. It seems to me that Bill's point is inerrancy does not appear to be the attitude of not only Jeremiah but other biblical authors--not so much that this example proves inerrancy a false idea per se....

I don't think that there is a parallel here, so much. Either Jeremiah was inspired to write it the first time, creating an inerrant portion of scripture, or he was inspired to make additions thereby displaying that he did not find the initial writing to be inerrant--it needed something additional. In the case of Matthew and Mark, they are two separate inspired leaders. Thus, simple additions by matthew are possible without repudiating the inerrancy of Mark. When the other types of varationss are inherent in both, thus changing some teachings or stories, then it seems much more obvious that Matthew does not consider what mark wrote as inerrant. It seems more plausible, under such consideration, that matthew considers his telling more likely, more complete, more accurate than mark's. That is assuming matthew is aware of Mark's before he writes his own--assuming Markan priority....

I don't think you have clearly understood me. Hopefully reading the above helps.

love,

stem

[Hick Preacher]

MAK

[ELF1024]

stem,

I'm afraid I still don't understand you, or at least don't see a cogent objection to inerrancy. If Jeremiah created an inerrant text, and then re-created that same inerrant text to which he then added additional statements, I don't see a problem.

So... If Joseph Smith Jr. had retranslated the first 166 pages of the "Book of Mormon" and the copy was (the) same inerrant text to which he then added additional statements; you would still have accepted it?

Somehow, I doubt that.

[Vance]

Actually, your statement excludes inerrancy. I am wondering if you will see it.

. . . but that Matthew deemed Mark's wording less understandable to Matthew's readers.

You are admitting that Matthew, not God, is the source of the change.

Also, your statement begs the question. Why didn't God give the more understandable wording to Mark in the first place?

Of course, you are still avoiding the conflict between Matthew and Luke regarding the effectivity of "the law and the prophets".

[Bill Hamblin]

stem,

Rather than debate Bill's meaning, since he has at least for now bowed out of the discussion, let's discuss your view, assuming you are adopting what you argue is Bill's view as your own. I do not see how a combination of changing, deleting, and adding material impinges on inerrancy unless the combination of differences results in substantive contradictions in intended meanings.

Earlier in this thread, Bill had claimed that the mere fact that Jeremiah added new material after rewriting the material on the burned scroll (Jer. 36) proves that the original scroll was not inerrant. Here Bill assumed that any additional material implied that the other text was errant. By this reasoning, if Matthew adds anything to his Gospel that wasn't in Mark, he is repudiating the inerrancy of Mark. You seem to recognize that this isn't an adequate critique. Jeremiah could add something to a text without calling into question the truth of anything in that text. You also agree with me that merely omitting something that is in someone else's text (e.g., Matthew and Luke omitting the pericope of the young man who ran away naked in Gethsemane) isn't evidence against inerrancy. So in principle, neither having something another text lacks nor lacking something another text has entails the errancy of that other text. Does combining these two types of differences, though, entail or imply errancy? I don't see how.

This leaves changes that are neither simple additions or subtractions. For example, Matthew changes some sayings found in Luke to read "kingdom of heaven" instead of "kingdom of God." That is a change in wording but not a change in the substantive meaning of those statements. Matthew and Luke have much of the same sayings material that in Matthew is collected all in one place (the Sermon on the Mount) while in Luke is scattered throughout his narrative. Some of Matthew's sayings material is not in Luke, and vice versa. Is the combination of such differences evidence of errancy? I don't think so. None of the Gospel writers claims that his sayings material is exhaustive of everything Jesus said; none claims that he is presenting Jesus' sayings material in their precise original geographical and chronological setting (and Matthew transparently is not doing so); none claims he is providing the ipsissima verbi of the Lord Jesus.

Again, does combining the "additions," "subtractions," and "changes" discussed above entail or imply errancy? I don't see how.

I have not been talking about whether a text actually is inerrant or not. I have been discussing what the use of supposedly inerrant texts by other biblical authors implies about their belief in inerrancy.

If I was a disciple of Jesus and believed Mark was inerrant, and I decided to write my own gospel and use Mark's gospel, when I used Mark's gospel I would attempt to quote it fully and accurately, since the text is inerrant. If I believed in inerrancy, I would not delete or change Mark's language. Therefore, I believe that the fact that Matthew and Luke feel free to delete or modify Mark's gospel indicates that they did not feel that Mark's gospel was inerrant. I don't know how to explain it more clearly than I have. You seem to be the only one who has misunderstood my position.

[Vance]

I have no idea why.

I know. That is what is so funny.

[stemelbow]

stem,

I'm afraid I still don't understand you, or at least don't see a cogent objection to inerrancy. If Jeremiah created an inerrant text, and then re-created that same inerrant text to which he then added additional statements, I don't see a problem. I gave a simple example earlier. If Jeremiah's original scroll had said, "God is going to judge the king in Jerusalem," and then in his replacement scroll he wrote, "God is going to judge the king in Jerusalem, and destroying a scroll will not change that fact," the added words do not in any way imply that the original scroll was errant.

i think this explains the misunderstanding a bit. If jeremiah considered his writings as inerrant the first time, then there is no need to add to it the next time, essentially. If Jeremiah's attitude is that his writings can be added to, changed, or edited then it is evident that jeremiah does not hold to inerrancy of his writings. he considers them to be something that can be corrected, revised or in the very least, as your example would suggest, clarified. I suppose you may not see problem with that at all, but the example given is merely evidencing that jeremiah does not consider his own written word inerrant. He considers his own written word something that can be changed, added to or clarified at the very least.

To say that the text "needed something additional" is somewhat of a prejudicial way of stating things. If it "needed something additional" to be correct, that would be one thing. If it "needed something additional" to be complete or up-to-date, that would be another. The former implicitly denies inerrancy; the latter does not. Inerrancy does not require completeness or exhaustiveness.

You may be right in that inerrancy does not require completeness or exhaustiveness. But that does not show that the example given, evidencing that jeremiah held more of a dynamic view of his writings, meaning he can change something if needed as he goes on, rather than a static inerrant view. Its obvious fromt he example that Jeremiah did not think that his writings as initially written were not to be added to for clarification or otherwise.

As for the Synoptics, again, we would need to look at specific differences to determine if they are consistent with inerrancy or not. If Matthew rephrases something so his readers will understand it better, that does not mean that Mark was wrong, but that Matthew deemed Mark's wording less understandable to Matthew's readers. Inerrancy does not deny such differences.

I would suggest that most inerrantists I've interacted with would disagree with your view. No big deal of course. They may simply be wrong regarding inerrancy themselves--a problem of poorly communicated teachings i suppose. i think you are aware of differences between Luke and mark, or Matthew and mark to get the gist of the point. I suppose we could quibble about those differences at this juncture, but such only seems to suggest you will justify variances as that which was considered a difference of opinion or purpose for each writer. Thus, the writer's influence, as errant as it might be, drives that variation. You would seem to have to justify that each variance, although motivated by the authors bias, does not mean either of the two variations are wrong, but just different. ro something to that effect. Seems like a whole bunch of wiggling around the obvious to me.

love,

stem