On Inerrancy

[volgadon]

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?

No worries, I'll repost it here. Like I said, I know you are busy, so I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

"It also depends on the definition of scripture. And on the definition of broken. And on the definition of fulfilled.

By happy coincidence, I am working on a blogpost about this very subject, so I did a bit of research.

John 10:35 has Christ defending himself by an appeal to a tradition not found in scripture, linking the children of Israel at Sinai to the story of Adam and eve, and linking them both to Psalm 82. Just as God had wanted to make Adam and Eve immortal gods, yet they sinned, fell, and died, so too did he wish to make the generation of the desert immortal gods, but they were afraid, and thus they died.

This should give pause enough to consider that maybe he is not talking about scriptural inerrancy here.

An important requirement in rabbinic interpretation of scripture was kiyyum or kayyama. that is, to fulfil or uphold the scripture. In other words, to show that the text is in agreement with your teaching. In the Mekhilta on Exodus 14:29, R. Pappias interprets Gen. 3:22 as God likening man to the angels. R. Akiba rejected that interpretation. R Pappias responds by asking R. Akiba how then does he uphold this verse.

In John 10:35 Jesus is showing that the tradition mentioned above upholds the verse from Psalm 82, it does not violate or break it. If that doesn't violate the scripture, then what is their problem with his declaration?

We find the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not violating scripture by his teaching, but upholding it."

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

"It also depends on the definition of scripture. And on the definition of broken. And on the definition of fulfilled.

True, true, true. But it's hard to imagine a definition of these terms that would warrant the way some people here treat the Bible, assuming they view it as scripture at all.

You wrote:

John 10:35 has Christ defending himself by an appeal to a tradition not found in scripture, linking the children of Israel at Sinai to the story of Adam and eve, and linking them both to Psalm 82. Just as God had wanted to make Adam and Eve immortal gods, yet they sinned, fell, and died, so too did he wish to make the generation of the desert immortal gods, but they were afraid, and thus they died. This should give pause enough to consider that maybe he is not talking about scriptural inerrancy here.

This is one of about half a dozen or more theories of the interpretation of Psalm 82 or of Jesus' interpretation of Psalm 82 (or of John's interpretation of Psalm 82, for those who are reluctant to attribute it to Jesus). The text of John 10 says nothing about Adam, Eve, or Sinai, and Psalm 82 says nothing about Adam, Eve, or Sinai. To read all of that into John 10 seems quite unwarranted to me. To make such a tenuous interpretation a link in an argument against inerrancy just doesn't work. Moreover, I don't see how understanding John 10 this way helps you avoid the conclusion that Jesus viewed Scripture as without error. You wrote:

An important requirement in rabbinic interpretation of scripture was kiyyum or kayyama. that is, to fulfil or uphold the scripture. In other words, to show that the text is in agreement with your teaching. In the Mekhilta on Exodus 14:29, R. Pappias interprets Gen. 3:22 as God likening man to the angels. R. Akiba rejected that interpretation. R Pappias responds by asking R. Akiba how then does he uphold this verse.

In John 10:35 Jesus is showing that the tradition mentioned above upholds the verse from Psalm 82, it does not violate or break it. If that doesn't violate the scripture, then what is their problem with his declaration?

We find the same thing in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not violating scripture by his teaching, but upholding it."

Why would the rabbis, or Jesus, feel it necessary to show that their position agreed with the text of scripture, if they didn't view the text of scripture as necessarily true? Doesn't this evidence if anything show that they did?

[maklelan]

Mak, I do not think you intend to be a proponent of secular humanism.

I am not at all a proponent of secular humanism. If someone thinks I am, intentionally or otherwise, they don't understand me at all. I've been absolutely clear on the source of my positions.

But I do know that when I have been exposed to Bible Criticism of this type that from secular humanists.

Then you have very, very narrow exposure to biblical scholarship.

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.

Your experience hardly comprises a representative portion of biblical scholarship (it doesn't represent biblical scholarship at all, really). The foundational theories of Israel's ethnogenesis, the composition of the Bible, and the nature of Israelite prophecy, etc. all come from believing scholars.

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.

First, it's not harshness, and I would appreciate it if my position was not misrepresented as "harshness" or "attacking," or with any other misleading characterizations. I am promoting an honest and objective reading of the Bible, and absolutely nothing more. Second, seminaries primarily produce pastors. Scholars who come out of seminaries usually go through a more academically oriented PhD program. Seminaries don't offer the kind of training that strictly academic programs offer. Third, Secular universities with biblical studies programs are inhabited by far more believing scholars and students than militant atheists, as is biblical scholarship in general.

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.

And that position is the minority view in scholarship. I don't know where you went to school, but you were exposed to an aberrant proportion of militant atheists.

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.

Then I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about the motivations of biblical scholars.

[Hick Preacher]

I am not at all a proponent of secular humanism. If someone thinks I am, intentionally or otherwise, they don't understand me at all. I've been absolutely clear on the source of my positions.

Then you have very, very narrow exposure to biblical scholarship.

Your experience hardly comprises a representative portion of biblical scholarship (it doesn't represent biblical scholarship at all, really). The foundational theories of Israel's ethnogenesis, the composition of the Bible, and the nature of Israelite prophecy, etc. all come from believing scholars.

First, it's not harshness, and I would appreciate it if my position was not misrepresented as "harshness" or "attacking," or with any other misleading characterizations. I am promoting an honest and objective reading of the Bible, and absolutely nothing more. Second, seminaries primarily produce pastors. Scholars who come out of seminaries usually go through a more academically oriented PhD program. Seminaries don't offer the kind of training that strictly academic programs offer. Third, Secular universities with biblical studies programs are inhabited by far more believing scholars and students than militant atheists, as is biblical scholarship in general.

And that position is the minority view in scholarship. I don't know where you went to school, but you were exposed to an aberrant proportion of militant atheists.

Then I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make sweeping generalizations about the motivations of biblical scholars.

Mak, for years I housed and read a collection of seminary text books-- such as

Edward J. Young's An Introduction to the Old Testament- but I never studied under a professor of the New or Old Testament. Yet I read and studied such and other theological books as a hobbie for years. I was under the opinion that It was beyond any practical application for me to spend ten years of full time theological study-- how would I make a living if I did so? How will you?

But it would be incorrect to think that I have a very very narrow exposure to Bible scholarship. But it is true that I have broader exposure to the motives and methods against the Bible of secular humanists who have a social engineering agenda in our public academic institutions of higher education. This may indeed seem to you Mak, 'as aberrant proportion of militant atheists'. And yes I was studying and doing research in academic environments were such humanists self-selected to work, some becoming radicalized because some of it was in Utah.

Yet so far as I can tell, the motif of the presentation of informational materials used to critize a univocal quality of the Bible in this thread here-- and appear to contain the same presentation, and content of the materials I have seen used over and over again, over many years of my experience by humanist atheists -.

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

Bible Contradiction 110:

110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation

Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6

The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation

Matt 5:17-19

[ELF1024]

Yet so far as I can tell, the motif of the presentation of informational materials used to critize a univocal quality of the Bible in this thread here-- and appear to contain the same presentation, and content of the materials I have seen used by humanist atheists is identical.

ok... so here is my dumb question... How does the source of the material, humanist atheists or secular humanist, make the arguement invalid?

[stemelbow]

ok... so here is my dumb question... How does the source of the material, humanist atheists or secular humanist, make the arguement invalid?

We may never know, since no one seems intent on addressing the argument, it appears.

Good question

[Vance]

ok... so here is my dumb question... How does the source of the material, humanist atheists or secular humanist, make the arguement invalid?

Oh you silly.

Only non-LDS can give "objective" criticism of things LDS.

But non-Evangelical (read non true believer) critics can NOT possibly give "objective" criticism of things Evangelical.

(And with the Jedi waive of the hand), no double standard to see here. Move along.

[maklelan]

Mak, for years I housed and read a collection of seminary text books-- such as

Edward J. Young's An Introduction to the Old Testament- but I never studied under a professor of the New or Old Testament. Yet I read and studied such and other theological books as a hobbie for years. I was under the opinion that It was beyond any practical application for me to spend ten years of full time theological study-- how would I make a living if I did so? How will you?

But it would be incorrect to think that I have a very very narrow exposure to Bible scholarship.

If you've only studies seminary textbooks then you have a very, very narrow exposure to biblical scholarship. I hesitate to call seminary textbooks scholarship, as well, since they tend to promote non-academic methodologies in the interest of preserving their dogmas.

But it is true that I have broader exposure to the motives and methods against the Bible of secular humanists who have a social engineering agenda in our public academic institutions of higher education. This may indeed seem to you Mak, 'as aberrant proportion of militant atheists'. And yes I was studying and doing research in academic environments were such humanists self-selected to work, some becoming radicalized because some of it was in Utah.

Yet so far as I can tell, the motif of the presentation of informational materials used to critize a univocal quality of the Bible in this thread here-- and appear to contain the same presentation, and content of the materials I have seen used over and over again, over many years of my experience by humanist atheists -.

And as I've pointed out, it developed from sincere academic curiosity. That secular humanists adopt that line of argumentation has no bearing whatsoever on its provenance or its motivation.

[ELF1024]

Oh you silly.

Only non-LDS can give "objective" criticism of things LDS.

But non-Evangelical (read non true believer) critics can NOT possibly give "objective" criticism of things Evangelical.

(And with the Jedi waive of the hand), no double standard to see here. Move along.

To Maklelan credit; when they start squealing like pigs about the question, it's usually a sure sign you've hit on something they don't want to discuss. Time to change the subject by attacking the question!

[Hick Preacher]

<<<If you've only studies seminary textbooks then you have a very, very narrow exposure to biblical scholarship. I hesitate to call seminary textbooks scholarship, as well, since they tend to promote non-academic methodologies in the interest of preserving their dogmas. >>>

A textbook like Young

[Hick Preacher]

To Maklelan credit; when they start squealing like pigs about the question, it's usually a sure sign you've hit on something they don't want to discuss. Time to change the subject by attacking the question!

The examples of a non-univocal Bible parallel the classic athiest and humanist attacks against the Bible as being a complete religious hoax. This is commonly proposed by anti-Bible and anti-God proponents by pointing to a long lists of alleged Bible contradictions. For example those seen promoted at these links

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra

http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

There is a huge back log of such Bible contradictions, and if this discussion

leads into such tactics the discussion will expand in complexity to the point of being unmanageable.

[ELF1024]

The examples of a non-univocal Bible parallel the classic athiest and humanist attacks against the Bible as being a complete religious hoax. This is commonly proposed by anti-Bible and anti-God proponents by pointing to a long lists of alleged Bible contradictions. For example those seen promoted at these links

http://www.infidels....radictions.html

http://www.evilbible...tradictions.htm

http://www.ffrf.org/.../lfif/?t=contra

http://www.islamway....tradictions.htm

http://skepticsannot...ra/by_name.html

There is a huge back log of such Bible contradictions, and if this discussion

leads into such tactics the discussion will expand in complexity to the point of being unmanageable.

... and what reason do you have to accuse Mak of being Anti-Bible and Anti-God?

Your arguement is based on your assumption that Mak is somehow following that tactic. What evidence do you have to show for that?

[Hick Preacher]

To Maklelan credit; when they start squealing like pigs about the question, it's usually a sure sign you've hit on something they don't want to discuss. Time to change the subject by attacking the question!

Squeling like pigs?

[ELF1024]

Squeling like pigs?

Unless I missed the post where you actually gave a coherent answer... I stand by the remark.

(cute picture btw)

[Hick Preacher]

... and what reason do you have to accuse Mak of being Anti-Bible and Anti-God?

Your arguement is based on your assumption that Mak is somehow following that tactic. What evidence do you have to show for that?

So ELF1024 why did you just infer that I was a pig?

Above I stated that I did not think that Mak intends to promote secular humanism.

Mak says his interest are not dogmatic, but rather academic.

However, I do think that any academic environment is purely unbiased.

I think that academic environments are creative, and draw from many sources of ideas. I think that some of the sources for the ideas presented against the notion of a univocal Bible canon may have been drawn and applied here from humanist pools or archives of information about the nature of the Bible.

I do not think Mak is using an anti-God tactic. But it appears that Mak may be using information from an archived source of information that was originally archived for the purpose of applying those tactics- but is now being repurposed for some other cause.

[ELF1024]

So ELF1024 why did you just infer that I was a pig?

Above I stated that I did not think that Mak intends to promote secular humanism.

Mak says his interest are not dogmatic, but rather academic.

However, I do think that any academic environment is purely unbiased.

I think that academic environments are creative, and draw from many sources if ideas. I think that some of the sources for the ideas presented against the notion of a univocal Bible canon may have been drawn and applied here from humanist pools or archives of information about the nature of the Bible.

Really? You are unfamiliar with a simile? I suspected you were older than I, but not quite THAT old.

I fail to see where the question comes from invalidates (it) in any way.

[maklelan]

A textbook like Young

[Hick Preacher]

Really? You are unfamiliar with a simile? I suspected you were older than I, but not quite THAT old.

I fail to see where the question comes from invalidates in any way.

You fell pray to the distraction about a pig.

And ignored the body of my response.

What does that tell you about the nature of written messages?

[ELF1024]

You fell pray to the distraction about a pig.

And ignored the body of my response.

What does that tell you about the nature of written messages?

No I read and responded to the body of your response. Just because you don't like my response doesn't mean it wasn't a response.

I'll just conclude that you can't answer the question, which is why you are so doggedly ignoring it.

And as for the nature of written messages, it just goes to show how they can't be inerrant...

[maklelan]

I'd like to point out again that no one has yet been able to reconcile a view of inerrancy with my discussions of (1) the accounts of Sennacherib's invasion, (2) Acts 15's appeal to Amos 9, (3) Yhwh's lying spirit in 1 Kings 22, or (4) Ezekiel's "bad commandment" in Exod 22:29.

[Hick Preacher]

Any treatment of biblical criticism that belittles JEDP in the interest of preserving Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch does not understand "higher critical treatments of Scripture." On the problem of understanding biblical criticism vs. undermining biblical criticism, see Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008), 133-70.

They are misunderstood more than they are addressed.

I didn't say they had no contact with reality, but they make use of academic methodologies only insofar as they support their dogmas. When those methodologies undermine their dogmas they circumvent or attempt to undermine them.

The following statement is shockingly non-academic (to the point of being anti-academic):

I don't believe I said anyone was free from biases. Scholars, however, should be aware of their biases and how they affect their work, and good ones will be clear upfront about those biases. All of them try to limit those biases as much as possible.

It is also often different because people arrive at different judgments because of different interpretations. It's not always exclusively the result of biases.

The academic treatment of the Bible seeks neither to prove nor disprove the existence of any God. Any treatments that seek one or the other are not academic.

You've the cart before the horse. The arguments are academic in origin and have been appropriated by the anti-religionist crowd.

Compare Young's text to an academic publication like Rev. James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).

Thanks for the referrals-(Sparks...Barr). IMO understanding that Torah (via JEDP or else) is a composite document, with a consistent and persistent themes is an indicator that the Word of God (of inspiration) came upon prophets of the old epochs in the preparation of the coming Messiah.

The understanding of this inspiration needs to be a bias communicated in academic pursuits, otherwise a humanistic bias will be automatically injected due to the conditions of our cultural environment. No research outcome can ever actually be benign. Research is motivated toward some end, people have motives.

People will undermine academic outcomes insofar as those research outcomes threaten their ability to make a living, and ability for them to provide for their family-- that is loosing their jobs. You know-- Abraham Maslow and all of that stuff.

Anti-God folks promote anti-Bible propaganda because that behavior is reinforced by their work environments. If a professor of cultural anthropology at a humanistic academy whose career hinged upon winning secular liberal research grants, became a flaming charismatic Jesus-Freak it would have a negative impact on his/her academic career and ability to raise grant money and get a pay check. Nevertheless such a humanistic academy likely pretends to be, and claims to be purely unbiased and purely academic ( or at least able to counter its biases toward purity).

[Hick Preacher]

No I read and responded to the body of your response. Just because you don't like my response doesn't mean it wasn't a response.

I'll just conclude that you can't answer the question, which is why you are so doggedly ignoring it.

And as for the nature of written messages, it just goes to show how they can't be inerrant...

I think you are silly ELF1024.

But it is an interesting comment. Written messages 'cannot be inerrant...' that is. What do you think about the 'Word of God' that inspired the writer of the scriptural message?

[Bill Hamblin]

I'd like to point out again that no one has yet been able to reconcile a view of inerrancy with my discussions of (1) the accounts of Sennacherib's invasion, (2) Acts 15's appeal to Amos 9, (3) Yhwh's lying spirit in 1 Kings 22, or (4) Ezekiel's "bad commandment" in Exod 22:29.

Yup. And they never will.

[Hick Preacher]

I'd like to point out again that no one has yet been able to reconcile a view of inerrancy with my discussions of (1) the accounts of Sennacherib's invasion, (2) Acts 15's appeal to Amos 9, (3) Yhwh's lying spirit in 1 Kings 22, or (4) Ezekiel's "bad commandment" in Exod 22:29.

I think the 'univocal' concept to which you keep referring is related to an impasse in the discussion.

[Zakuska]

I'd like to point out again that no one has yet been able to reconcile a view of inerrancy with my discussions of (1) the accounts of Sennacherib's invasion, (2) Acts 15's appeal to Amos 9, (3) Yhwh's lying spirit in 1 Kings 22, or (4) Ezekiel's "bad commandment" in Exod 22:29.

Dontcha know Mak... irrerrancy as a definition of anything has been so vacated of meaning that its like chaff on the summer threshing floor.

I mean... God had to have wanted Ezekiel to give a bad commandment and thats why its in there the way it is. It just shows that Gods inerrant stone cold Bible is perfect to worship and men are fallible. Which we already knew.

Ex 22

29