On Inerrancy

[ElfLord]

Jeremiah definatley didn't hold to Biblical inerrancy. Especially not in transmission.

Jer 8:8

How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

[maklelan]

Mak comments

[stemelbow]

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.

Rob,

Bill has come back and said it best. I think he makes his point, while you think his point does not address inerrancy, it seems.

LDS: The scriptures, though holy and inspired by God, seem to be influenced, at least in some cases, by the biases/motivations of some of their authors.

Rob: The scriptures, though holy and inspired by God, seem to be influenced, at least in some cases, by the biases/motivations of some of their authors, which means they are inerrant.

By your explanations it seems obvious you agree with LDS, but you simply call the LDS position inerrant.

love,

stem

[maklelan]

Surely you would agree that The Gospel of Luke and Acts are written in the same one authoring environment designed to publish Gospel propaganda seen in those two books. In this way they can be assumed as being univocal, and consistent. This is the only place we can start because something has to be assumed in order to move forward in a discussion of Luke and Acts. If one were to read Luke and Acts from beginning to the end, the meaning of Luke 16:16-17 would become clear.

Yes, it would, and I've explained what it clearly means. Can you explain exactly how the larger Lukan context mitigates my reading, or are you just obliquely assuming is will?

Expanding upon this, if one were to then study Mark, and Matthew considering that Luke seemed to depend on those gospels- the meaning and intents of Luke in Chapter 16 of Luke

[Hick Preacher]

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.

What version of MS Word would you have used to do this? Would you have needed to spell check your new Gospel document? Would you have used FaceBook to post your Gospel of Bill?

In otherwords-- what do you think had to go into the effort of producing such a Gospel account. How many people would have been involved. How was Luke able to produce Acts and His Gospel. I propose it required a whole team of people to support the environment of authorship. It was a conspiracy of of many, inspired by many, well planned by several, designed by a team, developed by a team of stakeholders, and delivered in an organized effort. Not just some spirit of the moment piece of lucky writing.

[stemelbow]

What version of MS Word would you have used to do this? Would you have needed to spell check your new Gospel document? Would you have used FaceBook to post your Gospel of Bill?

In otherwords-- what do you think had to go into the effort of producing such a Gospel account. How many people would have been involved. How was Luke able to produce Acts and His Gospel. I propose it required a whole team of people to support the environment of authorship. It was a conspiracy of of many, inspired by many, well planned by several, designed by a team, developed by a team of stakeholders, and delivered in an organized effort. Not just some spirit of the moment piece of lucky writing.

Sounds like a vivid imagination I suppose. do you have anything to support that which you propose? Or is this all just theoretical?

On what basis would the team Matthew and Luke see reason to make stories/teachings different than that which team mark wrote/produced?

love,

stem

[ELF1024]

Sounds like a vivid imagination I suppose. do you have anything to support that which you propose? Or is this all just theoretical?

On what basis would the team Matthew and Luke see reason to make stories/teachings different than that which team mark wrote/produced?

love,

stem

It's comical, they throw out the Book of Mormon for the tiny-est evidences, but they are willing to give the Bible huge tracks of land in order to prove inerrancy.

[stemelbow]

It's comical, they throw out the Book of Mormon for the tiny-est evidences, but they are willing to give the Bible huge tracks of land in order to prove inerrancy.

Comical...or sad--considering the level of inpiration that is the BoM.

I'd suggest they throw out the BoM for the tiny-est of assumptions rather than evidences. They merely use evidences as examples rather than as their reasoning. I get your point of course, though.

love,

stem

[ELF1024]

Comical...or sad--considering the level of inpiration that is the BoM.

I'd suggest they throw out the BoM for the tiny-est of assumptions rather than evidences. They merely use evidences as examples rather than as their reasoning. I get your point of course, though.

love,

stem

You're repharasing is completely correct, my bad.

[Hick Preacher]

Sounds like a vivid imagination I suppose. do you have anything to support that which you propose? Or is this all just theoretical?

On what basis would the team Matthew and Luke see reason to make stories/teachings different than that which team mark wrote/produced?

love,

stem

Luke provides some reasoning for writing-

Luke 1:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

He may have been addressing a specific audience not addressed by Mark or Matthew-

Also the Gospel document provides a second witness to certain events in Christ's mission.

[Vance]

It's comical, they throw out the Book of Mormon for the tiny-est evidences, but they are willing to give the Bible huge tracks of land in order to prove inerrancy.

It is a "mote" "beam" thing.

Or, if you will, a "gnat" "camel" thing.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

If what you have stated hypothetically had actually happened, I would certainly not have viewed any additions to those 116 (not 166) pages as calling into question the inspiration or inerrancy of the 116 pages. In fact, had Joseph retranslated the same material and produced an exact (or even near-exact) duplicate of the 116 pages (while they were not around for him to consult), that would have been an impressive feat and would have been good evidence of inspiration. The fact is, of course, that he was unwilling to try, unlike Jeremiah. Instead, he came up with a very fishy story about having another group of plates that re-told the same story as the 116 lost pages in a different way. That's good evidence that, unlike Jeremiah, Joseph was not inspired. See my article "A Tale of Two Scrolls" for a more thorough statement of the argument here.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Thanks for your explanation. So, let me see if I understand you. If you had been a disciple of Jesus and believed Mark's Gospel to have been inerrant, and you decided to write your own Gospel, you say that when you used Mark you would have attempted to quote it fully and accurately. Does that mean (a) that you would feel obliged to incorporate all of Mark's Gospel into your Gospel, or (b) only that, if you included a particular event or saying or speech of Jesus that you would feel obliged to give Mark's version without any addition, subtraction, or verbal difference? I think maybe you mean (b) rather than (a), is that correct?

Let me give another simple example and see if this illustrates your point. Mark reports that Jesus told the woman with the blood flow, "Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace and be healed of your affliction" (Mark 5:34), whereas Matthew reports that Jesus said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has saved you" (Matt. 8:22). Is it your view that if Matthew viewed the Gospel of Mark as inerrant, he would have quoted Jesus in the exact same words found in Mark 5:34? Specifically, do you view Matthew's inclusion of the words "take courage" or his lack of the words "go in peace and be healed of your affliction" as implying that he thought Mark's account was not inerrant?

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.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You don't seem to understand what the word inerrant means. It means "not having error." It does not mean "as absolutely clear as possible" or "as absolutely complete as possible."

Had Jeremiah taken the opportunity of the scroll being burned to correct statements he had made the first time, that would be a problem for my view. But that is not what happened. Jeremiah wrote the same things he did the first time, and then simply wrote more. If I write "10 + 6 = 16" on a piece of paper, burn the paper on which I wrote it, and then write "10 + 6 = 16; furthermore, 9 - 5 = 4," I have not undermined the inerrancy of my first paper. On the other hand, if on my first paper I write "10 + 6 = 106" and then burn it, rewriting it correctly to say "10 + 6 = 16," my first paper would indeed be errant, as my correction would reflect.

I cannot be responsible for the views of unnamed individuals with whom you may have discussed inerrancy in the past. I am a professional evangelical scholar and have studied the subject for over thirty years. The view I am defending is standard fare in the Evangelical Theological Society and other evangelical associations and institutions.

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.

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.

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

[ElfLord]

Bill,

Thanks for your explanation. So, let me see if I understand you. If you had been a disciple of Jesus and believed Mark's Gospel to have been inerrant, and you decided to write your own Gospel, you say that when you used Mark you would have attempted to quote it fully and accurately. Does that mean (a) that you would feel obliged to incorporate all of Mark's Gospel into your Gospel, or (b) only that, if you included a particular event or saying or speech of Jesus that you would feel obliged to give Mark's version without any addition, subtraction, or verbal difference? I think maybe you mean (b) rather than (a), is that correct?

I know Christian writers make a big deal about Eve adding to Gods word in the Garden... "Neither Shall ye touch it".

Which was the innerrant word of God? The version God gave or the version Eve embelished?

[Rob Bowman]

ElfLord,

You wrote:

I know Christian writers make a big deal about Eve adding to Gods word in the Garden... "Neither Shall ye touch it".

I take it you are excluding yourself from the category of "Christian writers."

You asked:

Which was the innerrant word of God? The version God gave or the version Eve embelished?

I think you might be trying to set a trap here. The whole passage is the inerrant word of God. Included in this inerrant word of God is a report of what God told Adam and what Eve told the serpent that God had said. Eve's embellished version may or may not have been faithful to God's meaning, but in any case, there is no difficulty here for inerrancy. If Eve's embellishment was unfaithful to God's meaning, then she erred, but the text of Genesis does not err in reporting what she said.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Thanks for your explanation. So, let me see if I understand you. If you had been a disciple of Jesus and believed Mark's Gospel to have been inerrant, and you decided to write your own Gospel, you say that when you used Mark you would have attempted to quote it fully and accurately. Does that mean (a) that you would feel obliged to incorporate all of Mark's Gospel into your Gospel, or (b) only that, if you included a particular event or saying or speech of Jesus that you would feel obliged to give Mark's version without any addition, subtraction, or verbal difference? I think maybe you mean (b) rather than (a), is that correct?

Let me give another simple example and see if this illustrates your point. Mark reports that Jesus told the woman with the blood flow, "Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace and be healed of your affliction" (Mark 5:34), whereas Matthew reports that Jesus said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has saved you" (Matt. 8:22). Is it your view that if Matthew viewed the Gospel of Mark as inerrant, he would have quoted Jesus in the exact same words found in Mark 5:34? Specifically, do you view Matthew's inclusion of the words "take courage" or his lack of the words "go in peace and be healed of your affliction" as implying that he thought Mark's account was not inerrant?

I think there are many more significant passages than that, where substantial differences are introduced into the text.

But, I think if Matthew believed Mark was inerrant, he would have quoted Mark exactly rather than changing Mark. I think that's rather obvious. I'm not sure why anyone would want to change or misquote a text that he believed was inerrant.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

But, I think if Matthew believed Mark was inerrant, he would have quoted Mark exactly rather than changing Mark. I think that's rather obvious. I'm not sure why anyone would want to change or misquote a text that he believed was inerrant.

"Misquote" is a misleading term in this context.

I have already explained why a biblical author might reword statements or rearrange material from another scriptural work without impugning its truthfulness. You don't seem to have engaged those reasons. Instead you keep asserting that it's obvious that no one would quote a text inexactly if he thought it was inerrant. It's not obvious to me.

If I quote John 1:1 as follows, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," I am not quoting it exactly. After all, what John actually wrote was (transliterating for sake of ease) ENARXHHNhOLOGOSKAIhOLOGOSHNPROSTONQEONKAIQEOSHNhOLOGOS. The fact that I translate the Greek text into English doesn't mean I regard the text as anything but inerrant. Indeed, if I were to say, "What John is telling us is that at the very beginning of creation, the Logos already existed; he existed personally with God the Father and was himself God," my rewording John's statement would once again in no sense imply that I think John's statement was other than inerrant. So what you say is "rather obvious" is anything but obvious.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

"Misquote" is a misleading term in this context.

I have already explained why a biblical author might reword statements or rearrange material from another scriptural work without impugning its truthfulness. You don't seem to have engaged those reasons. Instead you keep asserting that it's obvious that no one would quote a text inexactly if he thought it was inerrant. It's not obvious to me.

If I quote John 1:1 as follows, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," I am not quoting it exactly. After all, what John actually wrote was (transliterating for sake of ease) ENARXHHNhOLOGOSKAIhOLOGOSHNPROSTONQEONKAIQEOSHNhOLOGOS. The fact that I translate the Greek text into English doesn't mean I regard the text as anything but inerrant. Indeed, if I were to say, "What John is telling us is that at the very beginning of creation, the Logos already existed; he existed personally with God the Father and was himself God," my rewording John's statement would once again in no sense imply that I think John's statement was other than inerrant. So what you say is "rather obvious" is anything but obvious.

It looks like I, who don't believe in inerrancy, actually take scripture more seriously than you.

Which points to an observation I've made on numerous occasions. While most Evangelicals loudly proclaim the centrality of scriptural inerrancy, when pressed on the matter, they almost always qualify their belief in inerrancy to make it practically irrelevant. The biggest equivocation is--well, we don't have the autograph manuscripts. (And, I might note, those Evangelicals who actually know something about the Bible in its original languages and historical context are the least likely to seriously believe in inerrancy.)

If an inerrant text doesn't merit careful and accurate quotation, then inerrancy is, for all practical purposes, utterly irrelevant.

[Vance]

I am a professional evangelical scholar and have studied the subject for over thirty years.

2 Tim 3:7 comes to mind.

[ElfLord]

Bill,

You wrote:

"Misquote" is a misleading term in this context.

I have already explained why a biblical author might reword statements or rearrange material from another scriptural work without impugning its truthfulness. You don't seem to have engaged those reasons. Instead you keep asserting that it's obvious that no one would quote a text inexactly if he thought it was inerrant. It's not obvious to me.

If I quote John 1:1 as follows, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," I am not quoting it exactly. After all, what John actually wrote was (transliterating for sake of ease) ENARXHHNhOLOGOSKAIhOLOGOSHNPROSTONQEONKAIQEOSHNhOLOGOS. The fact that I translate the Greek text into English doesn't mean I regard the text as anything but inerrant. Indeed, if I were to say, "What John is telling us is that at the very beginning of creation, the Logos already existed; he existed personally with God the Father and was himself God," my rewording John's statement would once again in no sense imply that I think John's statement was other than inerrant. So what you say is "rather obvious" is anything but obvious.

Red herring alert. The contradiction between Matthew and Luke exist in the original greek.

[noel00]

Karl Bath joke

"Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich are taking a break together, fishing on Lake Geneva. They are having a lovely time, smoking their pipes and chatting idly. It

[maklelan]

Bill,

Thanks for your explanation. So, let me see if I understand you. If you had been a disciple of Jesus and believed Mark's Gospel to have been inerrant, and you decided to write your own Gospel, you say that when you used Mark you would have attempted to quote it fully and accurately. Does that mean (a) that you would feel obliged to incorporate all of Mark's Gospel into your Gospel, or (b) only that, if you included a particular event or saying or speech of Jesus that you would feel obliged to give Mark's version without any addition, subtraction, or verbal difference? I think maybe you mean (b) rather than (a), is that correct?

Let me give another simple example and see if this illustrates your point. Mark reports that Jesus told the woman with the blood flow, "Daughter, your faith has saved you; go in peace and be healed of your affliction" (Mark 5:34), whereas Matthew reports that Jesus said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has saved you" (Matt. 8:22). Is it your view that if Matthew viewed the Gospel of Mark as inerrant, he would have quoted Jesus in the exact same words found in Mark 5:34? Specifically, do you view Matthew's inclusion of the words "take courage" or his lack of the words "go in peace and be healed of your affliction" as implying that he thought Mark's account was not inerrant?

I can't speak for Bill, but a text that I think better illustrates the disparity between what we would expect from an inerrantist authorial position and what we have in the New Testament is Mark 7:25-30 // Matt 15:21-28. Mark, the older account, presents a Gentile of Syrophoenician descent. Christ responds to her petition by telling her that "the children must be fed first, it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." When the woman responds that the dogs eat the scraps under the table, Christ responds, "For that saying, you may go--the demon has left your daughter." Matthew presents a "Canaanite" woman. At first Christ explains that he will not help her: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His mission is not to non-Jews. Christ's response to her position does not indicate that the children's food is only temporarily exclusive to them. He just says, "it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." When she responds with the comment about eating the scraps under the table, Christ states, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish."

So why is this significant? Matthew seems to be promoting the same view he does in 5:18-19, namely that the law of Moses is in effect for all who wish to be saved. The woman is "Canaanite," not "Syrophoenician." This may seem like a trivial distinction, but "Canaanite" is an artificial ethnicity used to speak of Israel's opposition. The woman is not simply a foreigner, she's an un-Jew. The possibility of later reception of the children's food is also omitted by Matthew. After all, the law of Moses will remain in effect until heaven and earth pass away. The gospel will not later be offered to non-Jews. "I am sent to none but the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Christ's mission is not to non-Jews (non-law-followers). You want the gospel, you become Jewish. That this is the case is evidenced in the way Matthew changes Jesus' response. Mark is presenting the woman as besting Jesus in a battle of wits. In Mark's account the woman responds to Jesus' belittling with a skillful comeback, and Jesus rewards her for her rhetorical prowess. In Matthew, it is her faith that gains her Jesus' help. To be more specific, her faith has qualified her to be considered Jewish. Conversion was a reality during this time period, but the method was still rather fluid, especially for women. Philo and Josephus spoke of non-Israelites in Israel's past as becoming Jewish through acts of faith, such as Tamar, Zilpah, Ruth, Rahab, and Bilhah (see, for instance, pp. 28-31 here, or Heb 11:31). Matthew isn't saying that the woman gets to be made an exception like Mark is. Matthew is saying the woman showed herself to be Jewish. Again, Matthew presents a Judaizing perspective. He has completely altered Jesus' approach to the woman. These texts can't both be accurate.

[stemelbow]

stem,

You don't seem to understand what the word inerrant means. It means "not having error." It does not mean "as absolutely clear as possible" or "as absolutely complete as possible."

I don't think I'm using the term as "as absolutely clear as possible" or "as absolutely complete as possible".

Had Jeremiah taken the opportunity of the scroll being burned to correct statements he had made the first time, that would be a problem for my view. But that is not what happened. Jeremiah wrote the same things he did the first time, and then simply wrote more. If I write "10 + 6 = 16" on a piece of paper, burn the paper on which I wrote it, and then write "10 + 6 = 16; furthermore, 9 - 5 = 4," I have not undermined the inerrancy of my first paper. On the other hand, if on my first paper I write "10 + 6 = 106" and then burn it, rewriting it correctly to say "10 + 6 = 16," my first paper would indeed be errant, as my correction would reflect.

Of course Jeremiah's words weren't math. I appreciate your example because it illustrates what I've been saying. Jeremiah felt it necessary to add to that which he previously wrote--he provided additional information to that which was supposed to be inerrant. If that is the case, then it appears Jeremiah did not view scripture as inerrant--in that it is something that needs, at times, clarification, at the very least. You see, even Joseph Smith's clarification of John 1 can then be considered part of inerrant scripture, on your argument.

I cannot be responsible for the views of unnamed individuals with whom you may have discussed inerrancy in the past. I am a professional evangelical scholar and have studied the subject for over thirty years. The view I am defending is standard fare in the Evangelical Theological Society and other evangelical associations and institutions.

I didn't say you are responsible for anyone elses views. But rest assured i will direct people in your direction if they seem mistaken on the concept of inerrancy.

Again, it seems obvious you are explaining the general LDS view of scripture and merely calling it inerrancy. If that is so, and if that is what is meant by inerrancy, in your view, then i see no reason to argue further.

Would you say you agree with the general LDS view of scripture?

love,

stem

[volgadon]

I wonder if Rob Bowman would be so kind as to address the points I raised about scripture being broken.