On Inerrancy

[Vance]

Again, it seems obvious you are explaining the general LDS view of scripture and merely calling it inerrancy.

Well, that is what he has been backed into here. The LDS position is far more defensible than "inerrancy" as most Evangelicals actually understand it.

If that is so, and if that is what is meant by inerrancy, in your view, then i see no reason to argue further.

It is what he has been forced into here because he can't defend the definition commonly understood by EVs. But if you go to his anti-Mormon tomes at IRR you will get a TOTALLY different take.

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

Good question.

And if he did, would he correct the tripe he has produced at IRR?

[Zakuska]

Earlier... I beleive Rob was taking about univocality of the text... I really have to question that assertion.

1 Sam 6

6 Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? when he had wrought wonderfully among them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?

Psalm 95:8

8

[ELF1024]

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

I'm still waiting for Mr. Bowman to get back to me on the following....

Exactly what books of the Bible do you accept, and where can I purchase a copy of the "Rob Bowman Edition".

But I'm not holding my breath.

[volgadon]

Well, I understand he is busy.

[Vance]

Well, I understand he is busy.

It does take a lot of time fabricating attacks on Mormonism. A lot of quote mining and all.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

I'm still waiting for Mr. Bowman to get back to me on the following....

Exactly what books of the Bible do you accept, and where can I purchase a copy of the "Rob Bowman Edition".

But I'm not holding my breath.

You shouldn't expect an answer to such an offensively put question, especially since you ought to know the answer already. I accept all 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible, 39 in the OT and 27 in the NT.

Now, why don't you answer your own question and tell me which books of the Bible you accept and where I can purchase a copy of the Bible you accept.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Well, that is what he has been backed into here. The LDS position is far more defensible than "inerrancy" as most Evangelicals actually understand it.... It is what he has been forced into here because he can't defend the definition commonly understood by EVs. But if you go to his anti-Mormon tomes at IRR you will get a TOTALLY different take.... And if he did [agree with the general LDS view of scripture], would he correct the tripe he has produced at IRR?

This is "totally" offensive, Vance. You are in essence accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting my own view, and the view of evangelicalism, concerning inerrancy.

This is a formal CFR (call for reference).

1. Cite for me one example of one of these "anti-Mormon tomes at IRR" where supposedly I give "a TOTALLY different take" on the nature of Scripture than the view I have presented and defended here.

2. Cite for me a definition of biblical inerrancy from an evangelical scholar or theologian (excluding the fringe KJV-Only types) whose view of biblical inerrancy is different from the one I have presented and defended here. This is a CFR regarding your statement that I "can't defend the definition commonly understood by EVs."

[ELF1024]

Elf,

You wrote:

You shouldn't expect an answer to such an offensively put question, especially since you ought to know the answer already. I accept all 66 books of the Protestant canon of the Bible, 39 in the OT and 27 in the NT.

Well you know Mr. Bowman, I have a hard time accepting that answer. After all, you keep saying that you just won't accept parts of some books. For example the long ending in Mark.

So why don't you try again, and be specific. After all, I'm just trying to make sure there is a level playing field so that we can use a fully accepted group of books that you are willing to accept without any more "Oh, I don't accept that part of that..." games.

I haven't throw out any books, but rather I have discounted your incorrect intrepretations of them. You can go to any bookstore and pickup a KJV. I guess you could say that I don't accept books outside of the typical LDS Quad as Canon, but I am willing to entertain them.

That would include books (I am willing to entertain) of the Catholic Canon, Gnostic Gospels, Books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and whatever happens to show up in the next 100 years or so.

Now, if you would be so kind as to give an equally specific answer...

(ADDITIONAL)

Seriously, if all "Bible Scholars Agree that..." is there a Scholar's Bible? One that seperated Isaiah into Proto-Deutero-Third Sections? One that removes the offensive section in Mark?

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

I'm sorry, I went back several pages of posts and didn't see the post to which you are referring here. Could you provide a link or post number?

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

[Hick Preacher]

In reviewing some of the expressed posts above I would comment.

---

A view similar to Mak

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

This is "totally" offensive, Vance. You are in essence accusing me of knowingly misrepresenting my own view, and the view of evangelicalism, concerning inerrancy.

This is a formal CFR (call for reference).

1. Cite for me one example of one of these "anti-Mormon tomes at IRR" where supposedly I give "a TOTALLY different take" on the nature of Scripture than the view I have presented and defended here.

Oh, you might have me on this one Rob. Perhaps I assumed that something you wrote about the Book of Mormon could be found at IRR. But apparently not all of your "tomes" are available there.

But we do have this written by you,

The critical question to be answered about the Book of Mormon is whether it is true. There are several levels on which this question can be entertained.

I. The Book of Mormon Lacks Inerrancy

First, we can ask whether the Book of Mormon is inerrant. That is, we can ask if it is completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors. The answer to this question is simply No. Most Mormons will readily admit that the Book of Mormon is not inerrant. The preface to the Book of Mormon states, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men...." This is, of course, a truism

[maklelan]

In reviewing some of the expressed posts above I would comment.

---

A view similar to Mak

[stemelbow]

My conclusions are 100% academic and are not grounded in any propaganda of any kind whatsoever.

I thought his post exhibited a pretty unfair characterization attempt myself.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The statement about inerrancy that you quoted from my old article on the Book of Mormon still accurately reflects my views. I believed then, and believe now, that the Bible in its original-language texts is completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors. Nothing I have said in this forum has disagreed with that view.

Looks like you will need to retract your claims.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

My conclusions are 100% academic and are not grounded in any propaganda of any kind whatsoever.

Beware of the false dichotomy. Conclusions can be academic and still be grounded in propaganda.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

Beware of the false dichotomy. Conclusions can be academic and still be grounded in propaganda.

I'm well aware of this, but the only possible propaganda that could be asserted to underlie my post is an effort to promote objective and informed exegesis of the Bible. If anyone wants to call that propaganda they can be my guest.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

Hick's point was not that you were personally engaged in propaganda, but that your views reflect an approach to the Bible that is grounded in secular, humanistic, naturalistic worldview thinking that has been promoted in academia in what Hick characterized as propaganda. You may disagree, but you haven't even started to show why he is mistaken. In fact, the substance of his critique would stand even if he were to agree to withdraw the use of the term propaganda.

I'm well aware of this, but the only possible propaganda that could be asserted to underlie my post is an effort to promote objective and informed exegesis of the Bible. If anyone wants to call that propaganda they can be my guest.

[Vance]

Vance,

The statement about inerrancy that you quoted from my old article on the Book of Mormon still accurately reflects my views. I believed then, and believe now, that the Bible in its original-language texts is completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors. Nothing I have said in this forum has disagreed with that view.

Looks like you will need to retract your claims.

Denying the obvious are you?

From the very next paragraph.

If "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16), then Scripture cannot err, since God cannot breathe or speak error. If, as Jesus Himself taught, not the smallest letter or part of a letter will pass away from the OT until it has all been fulfilled (Matt. 5:18), then the OT at least must be without error. And if the OT is inerrant, any future Scripture will have to meet that standard of truth.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

Hick's point was not that you were personally engaged in propaganda, but that your views reflect an approach to the Bible that is grounded in secular, humanistic, naturalistic worldview thinking that has been promoted in academia in what Hick characterized as propaganda. You may disagree, but you haven't even started to show why he is mistaken. In fact, the substance of his critique would stand even if he were to agree to withdraw the use of the term propaganda.

I don't think his critique has much substance. It is an assumption propped up by a fallacious rationale. That assumption is a rather common one among non-academics, but as one who is actively participating in the academy, I can tell him and you with absolute certainty that the vast majority of the scholars who promote this approach to the Bible are believing Jews and Christians themselves who just want people to be honest with their scriptures. That secular humanists who militate against religion happen to adopt the academy's conclusions in no way whatsoever indicates the academy is driven by the same ideologies. The fact is, my approach is grounded in a 100% academic position. The secular humanist adoption of that approach is secondary.

[stemelbow]

I don't think his critique has much substance. It is an assumption propped up by a fallacious rationale. That assumption is a rather common one among non-academics, but as one who is actively participating in the academy, I can tell him and you with absolute certainty that the vast majority of the scholars who promote this approach to the Bible are believing Jews and Christians themselves who just want people to be honest with their scriptures. That secular humanists who militate against religion happen to adopt the academy's conclusions in no way whatsoever indicates the academy is driven by the same ideologies. The fact is, my approach is grounded in a 100% academic approach. The secular humanist adoption of that approach is secondary.

With that, its a deflection. Your argument has been ignored but somehow he felt it necessary to comment on the approach you took instead of the very demonstration you offered. Then Rob commented to further the deflection attempting to get you to engage his demonstration. What's the point? The deflection lives on, i guess.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I have no idea what you're claiming here. No idea at all where you see any difference in the view I have presented here and what I have said anywhere else.

Denying the obvious are you?

From the very next paragraph.

[ELF1024]

Vance,

I have no idea what you're claiming here. No idea at all where you see any difference in the view I have presented here and what I have said anywhere else.

I believe, and Vance can correct me if I'm wrong, that by you saying "then the OT at least must be without error." is a contradiction to how you have defined Inerrant on this board.

[ELF1024]

Vance,

I have no idea what you're claiming here. No idea at all where you see any difference in the view I have presented here and what I have said anywhere else.

Personally, I find it comical that you feel the need to make the statement that "Most Mormons will readily admit that the Book of Mormon is not inerrant." when you know that we don't believe that ANY Book of Scripture is Inerrant. Seem to be playing a shell game with the facts in order to support your point.

[Hick Preacher]

I don't think his critique has much substance. It is an assumption propped up by a fallacious rationale. That assumption is a rather common one among non-academics, but as one who is actively participating in the academy, I can tell him and you with absolute certainty that the vast majority of the scholars who promote this approach to the Bible are believing Jews and Christians themselves who just want people to be honest with their scriptures. That secular humanists who militate against religion happen to adopt the academy's conclusions in no way whatsoever indicates the academy is driven by the same ideologies. The fact is, my approach is grounded in a 100% academic approach. The secular humanist adoption of that approach is secondary.

Mak, I do not think you intend to be a proponent of secular humanism. But I do know that when I have been exposed to Bible Criticism of this type that from secular humanists. I have had this initial experience when I was an undergraduate studying under research University professors who were militant atheists, in cultural anthropology/ sociology/philosophy courses. Over and over I have seen these atheists attack American culture's veneration of the Bible openly in courses that were included in undergraduate general educational requirements.

The arguments against the Bible as the ones that I referenced in the above links contain the same standard attacks universally used by such militant atheists I have encountered over and over in my academic career as an undergraduate, a graduate student, and my former career as a research university staff member- even while employed at Utah State University.

I have never attended or worked at a theological seminary to experience such views promoted against the Bible. But I have discussed this with those who have attended such educational organisations, who say they never encountered such criticism of such harshness.

So Mak you are correct in suggesting that my assessement of the nature and motives behind such analysis against inerrancy of the Bible is not based on a logical evaluation-- but rather is just based on my personal opinion, a self-report, based on my personal life experiences.

These experiences of mine are limited to what secular humanist faculty professed, along with the readings I explored related to my personal research initiated by my curiosity into the nature of those expressed public opinions of those faculty.

When I approached these humanist faculty with counter arguments- it did not do me any service socially or benefit my academic career. But I did finally learn something of the motives of these humanists as they viewed and confessed to having a role in the world as a kind of 'social engineer'. These faculity would openly admit that they were using Bible errors as part of an agenda in promotion of a new and better humanistic world view and culture. They indicated many times that they felt that religion in general to be part of the human problem of today's world.

Again, I do not have any actual personal or professional exposure to ancient Biblical linguists faculty types or or Biblical archeologists in a university setting.

[Vance]

I believe, and Vance can correct me if I'm wrong, that by you saying "then the OT at least must be without error." is a contradiction to how you have defined Inerrant on this board.

BINGO!!

Here, it is only the autographs, which don't exist, are without error. But to the sheeple and sycophants it is "then the OT at least must be without error. And if the OT is inerrant, any future Scripture will have to meet that standard of truth".