On Inerrancy

[Hick Preacher]

Yup. And they never will.

You mean because of Yhwh's lying spirit in 1 Kings 22?

There are hundreds of Biblical readings that people say are contradictions.

Analytical readers for decades have published many many explanations to these alleged contradictions. For example- http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

The dynamic of this discussion has discounted the idea that the canon is 'univocal', as to treat such explanations as invalid.

[Hick Preacher]

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

[maklelan]

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.

But JEDP presumes four vastly disparate ideological motivations that are largely irreconcilable. Either Noah took two pairs of animals on the ark with him (J) or he took seven pairs (P). Either Yhwh was the god of the Patriarchs (J) or Yhwh was completely unknown to the Patriarchs (E).

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.

There is no room for assertions of the supernatural or revelation in strictly academic research. If it is allowed anywhere it becomes a trump card that quite literally undermines the entire academic endeavor.

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).

A "humanistic academy"? "Secular liberal research grants"? Can you give me examples of either?

[maklelan]

You mean because of Yhwh's lying spirit in 1 Kings 22?

There are hundreds of Biblical readings that people say are contradictions.

Analytical readers for decades have published many many explanations to these alleged contradictions. For example- http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

The dynamic of this discussion has discounted the idea that the canon is 'univocal', as to treat such explanations as invalid.

Those attempts to deny contradiction in the Bible are hopelessly misguided and are methodologically baseless. For instance:

61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died [Ex 9:3,6]

All the horses of Egypt did not die [Ex 14:9]

The account in Ex 9:3 refers to the livestock in the field. If not all the Egyptian horses were in the fields, they wouldn't all die, now would they?

Even if we accept that Exod 9:3 did intend to refer to the cattle in the field as a distinct category from the cattle not in the field, Exod 9:6 says "all the livestock of the Egyptians died." No qualification is made there. This author is implying that the qualification in v. 3 should be extended to govern our reading of v. 6. There's no grammatical or literary basis for that implication, though. Additionally, if you look at Exod 9:25, you'll see that the beasts of the field were still around to be struck down by the hail. This text is simply ignored by the author responsible for this attempt to harmonize an absolutely unquestionable contradiction. Here's another example:

98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan [2 Sam 21:19] note: was changed in translation to be correct -- original manuscript was incorrect.

The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan [1 Chron 20:5]

As conceded, the verse in 2 Sam was probably due to a copyist's mistake.

2 Sam 21:19 was not a copyist's mistake. The first Chronicles text simply changed 2 Samuel to align it with the more famous account of David killing Goliath. Here is the Hebrew of both:

??? ????? ???????

[Hick Preacher]

Maks comments in quotes-

But JEDP presumes four vastly disparate ideological motivations that are largely irreconcilable. Either Noah took two pairs of animals on the ark with him (J) or he took seven pairs (P). Either Yhwh was the god of the Patriarchs (J) or Yhwh was completely unknown to the Patriarchs (E).

Some would assign inspiration to those who compiled and sreedited the transcribed generations of versions into a consistent LXX. Not saying I would-- but some could have had that attitude. The belief that someone's ancient motivation was to insert YHWH into an old tradition or text where EL, Elohim, b' el' or Baal once existed seems to be to be a huge assumption and a bias.

We do know there was an oral tradition-- an ancient story of Noah set to writing. And at a later point when theology with the Hebrews matured that God was identified as Yehovah in Hebrew Tradition.

Still, the inspiration of the Word of God upon writers who first reported these Hebrew oral traditions would not be called in to question due to such disparities in due to multiple generations of transcriptions.

There is no room for assertions of the supernatural or revelation in strictly academic research. If it is allowed anywhere it becomes a trump card that quite literally undermines the entire academic endeavor.

And also there is no actual sterile, unbiased research environment.

And we are discussing this on the MADB board--an LDS Apologist forum. This forum is NOT a strict academic only environment.

A "humanistic academy"? "Secular liberal research grants"? Can you give me examples of either?

A research grant to find out if a quadriplegic can hold down a full time job as a computer programmer using a sip and puff computer interface to enter data. The underlying argument having to do with Maslow's hierarchy of needs dictated that the individual was entitled to journey upward into higher levels of well being only if he/she had fulfilled the lower levels of food and shelter by employment.

The model applied argued the the traditional human attribute of "love" did not exist ( being that Love was a myth of religion) to provide security on the Maslow scale- an that empowerment by working was necessary to improve the quality of life for persons with a disability.

[Hick Preacher]

Those attempts to deny contradiction in the Bible are hopelessly misguided and are methodologically baseless. For instance:

Even if we accept that Exod 9:3 did intend to refer to the cattle in the field as a distinct category from the cattle not in the field, Exod 9:6 says "all the livestock of the Egyptians died." No qualification is made there. This author is implying that the qualification in v. 3 should be extended to govern our reading of v. 6. There's no grammatical or literary basis for that implication, though. Additionally, if you look at Exod 9:25, you'll see that the beasts of the field were still around to be struck down by the hail. This text is simply ignored by the author responsible for this attempt to harmonize an absolutely unquestionable contradiction. Here's another example:

2 Sam 21:19 was not a copyist's mistake. The first Chronicles text simply changed 2 Samuel to align it with the more famous account of David killing Goliath. Here is the Hebrew of both:

The Chronicles account is clearly not in conflict with 1 Samuel 17, which says David killed Goliath. The only differences are between the following to sections:

The word ????? in the 2 Sam text is there because of dittography (it appears again at the end of the verse), so the author I quoted (and many others) argue that the other differences are secondary in 2 Sam. They argue ??????? was changed to ??? ?????, and ??? was changed to ??. Thus "son of Jair slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath" was changed to "son of Jair the Bethlehemite slew Goliath." This doesn't seem too unreasonable, but from a text-critical point of view the more difficult text (here the one that produces a contradiction) is likely original. Is there merit for this presumption? Yup. Lahmi is not a personal name ("My Bread"?) and if it were, it would be Semitic. Goliath and his family, however, were not Semitic. Additionally, Jaare was indeed a Bethlehemite. In 2 Sam 23:24 and 1 Chr 11:26 Elhanan (Jaare's son) is mentioned as having a Bethlehemite father. The Chronicles account is very clearly the secondary one. The chronicler changed his Samuel account to avoid the problematic notion that it was someone other than David that killed Goliath.

Again, those attempts to whitewash the Bible's contradictions are hopelessly misguided and methodologically baseless. You want an honest approach to the Bible's contradictions? See here.

One could make a career in pursuit of addressing the differences in records of the supposed same events seen in Chronicles, vs. Kings and Samuel. This is a complex issue and to simply say "...those attempts to whitewash the Bible's contradictions are hopelessly misguided and methodologically baseless..." are premature. To project motives onto the chronicler(s) is speculative- and not an activity I would consider to be an unbiased academic endeavor.

Here is a blog that provides some of the situation, and approach one might use to start such a pursuit. http://gptsrabbi.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-kings-vs-chronicles-contradictions.html

Nevertheless Mak, I appreciate the link to your blog entry on this specific topic. Did you create the PDF 'contradictions...' document?

[maklelan]

Maks comments in quotes-

Some would assign inspiration to those who compiled and sreedited the transcribed generations of versions into a consistent LXX.

Then those would have to account for the fact that the Septuagint changes the ages of the Patriarch to have Methuselah live fourteen years past the date it gives for the flood. The LXX is no more consistent, overall, than the Hebrew.

Not saying I would-- but some could have had that attitude. The belief that someone's ancient motivation was to insert YHWH into an old tradition or text where EL, Elohim, b' el' or Baal once existed seems to be to be a huge assumption and a bias.

No it's not. First of all, Exod 6:3 says the name Yhwh was not known until it was revealed to Moses at Horeb (Sinai), but Gen 4:26 says they knew Yhwh's name in the time of Adam's grandson. Moses' Mom had a Yahwistic theophoric name, for cryin' out loud. One creation account (in Genesis 1) never uses the name Yhwh, but the instant the account starts over again in Gen 2:4b, Yhwh is the preferred name. One account of the flood never uses the name Yhwh, and the other does. One account of the Patriarchal genealogies never uses the name Yhwh, and the other does (see a more detailed discussion here). It's also very clearly attested in the later transmission of these texts. Gen 14:19, 22, for instance, does not have the name Yhwh anywhere near it in the Septuagint and the Scrolls version, but it's in MT, which very clearly added it later to make sure everyone knew who we were talking about. Positing a campaign to conflate Yhwh with a deity originally unassociated with him is not an assumption, it's the only way to reconcile the data. Look at Psalm 29, where Yhwh's voice is seven times associated with lightning and thunder. It's no coincidence that texts from centuries before talk about Baal's "seven thunders and lightnings." It's no coincidence that Psalm 104 pulls vernacular pretty much verbatim from an centuries-older Egyptian hymn to the sun god Aten. Look at Mark Smith's God in Translation for a lengthy discussion of the way attributes of deity were shared and manipulated by different Near Eastern cultures.

We do know there was an oral tradition-- an ancient story of Noah set to writing. And at a later point when theology with the Hebrews matured that God was identified as Yehovah in Hebrew Tradition.

There was an even older tradition with a guy named Utnapishtim, and he became a god.

Still, the inspiration of the Word of God upon writers who first reported these Hebrew oral traditions would not be called in to question due to such disparities in due to multiple generations of transcriptions.

These oral traditions did not begin as Hebrew traditions, though. They began millennia before as Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Syro-Palestinian traditions.

And also there is no actual sterile, unbiased research environment.

I never said there were, I just said academic approaches to biblical studies are far less biased than faith-based.

And we are discussing this on the MADB board--an LDS Apologist forum. This forum is NOT a strict academic only environment.

I generally only participate in academic discussions, and this thread is a purely academic discussion.

[maklelan]

One could make a career in pursuit of addressing the differences in records of the supposed same events seen in Chronicles, vs. Kings and Samuel. This is a complex issue and to simply say "...those attempts to whitewash the Bible's contradictions are hopelessly misguided and methodologically baseless..." are premature.

The differences between Chronicles and Samuel/Kings are actually not that complicated, and there are numerous publications which address them in full. The website you linked to that address the putative contradictions is no doubt right about some of the texts they discuss, but they're flat wrong about the majority of them, and it really is as simple as that.

To project motives onto the chronicler(s) is speculative- and not an activity I would consider to be an unbiased academic endeavor.

No, it's not speculative. His motives are very clear. He promotes the Davidic dynasty and the role of the Levites in the cult. That's why he adds them all over the text and changes all the sacrifices and cultic things to align them with later priestly ideologies.

Here is a blog that provides some of the situation, and approach one might use to start such a pursuit. http://gptsrabbi.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-kings-vs-chronicles-contradictions.html

Anybody who quotes Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties doesn't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about. A good example of an irreconcilable contradiction between Samuel and Chronicles is 2 Sam 6:13 and 1 Chr 15:26. The sacrifice in Samuel is not prescribed anywhere, and is thus unauthorized. It also happens every six steps, which is bizarre. In Chronicles the sacrifice has been changed to an authorized one, and the number of sacrifices has been leveled off to a perfect seven. Why? Because the sacrificial prescriptions were composed during the exile, after Samuel had been written. The chronicler also mixes Pss 96:1

[Hick Preacher]

The differences between Chronicles and Samuel/Kings are actually not that complicated, and there are numerous publications which address them in full. The website you linked to that address the putative contradictions is no doubt right about some of the texts they discuss, but they're flat wrong about the majority of them, and it really is as simple as that.

Interesting-

No, it's not speculative. His motives are very clear. He promotes the Davidic dynasty and the role of the Levites in the cult. That's why he adds them all over the text and changes all the sacrifices and cultic things to align them with later priestly ideologies.

More interesting and informative. The religion of the Hebrews was evolving then--?

Anybody who quotes Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties doesn't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about. A good example of an irreconcilable contradiction between Samuel and Chronicles is 2 Sam 6:13 and 1 Chr 15:26. The sacrifice in Samuel is not prescribed anywhere, and is thus unauthorized. It also happens every six steps, which is bizarre. In Chronicles the sacrifice has been changed to an authorized one, and the number of sacrifices has been leveled off to a perfect seven. Why? Because the sacrificial prescriptions were composed during the exile, after Samuel had been written.

Are there indications that these changes were been made by Ezra?

The chronicler also mixes Pss 96:1

[Hick Preacher]

Then those would have to account for the fact that the Septuagint changes the ages of the Patriarch to have Methuselah live fourteen years past the date it gives for the flood. The LXX is no more consistent, overall, than the Hebrew.

No it's not. First of all, Exod 6:3 says the name Yhwh was not known until it was revealed to Moses at Horeb (Sinai), but Gen 4:26 says they knew Yhwh's name in the time of Adam's grandson. Moses' Mom had a Yahwistic theophoric name, for cryin' out loud. One creation account (in Genesis 1) never uses the name Yhwh, but the instant the account starts over again in Gen 2:4b, Yhwh is the preferred name. One account of the flood never uses the name Yhwh, and the other does. One account of the Patriarchal genealogies never uses the name Yhwh, and the other does (see a more detailed discussion here). It's also very clearly attested in the later transmission of these texts. Gen 14:19, 22, for instance, does not have the name Yhwh anywhere near it in the Septuagint and the Scrolls version, but it's in MT, which very clearly added it later to make sure everyone knew who we were talking about. Positing a campaign to conflate Yhwh with a deity originally unassociated with him is not an assumption, it's the only way to reconcile the data. Look at Psalm 29, where Yhwh's voice is seven times associated with lightning and thunder. It's no coincidence that texts from centuries before talk about Baal's "seven thunders and lightnings." It's no coincidence that Psalm 104 pulls vernacular pretty much verbatim from an centuries-older Egyptian hymn to the sun god Aten. Look at Mark Smith's God in Translation for a lengthy discussion of the way attributes of deity were shared and manipulated by different Near Eastern cultures.

Much of this makes sense to me because of the struggle Israel had with Baal-- and the conversion to YHWH worship. This shared attributes principle is seen much later with Isis and Horus having parallel imagery with Christ and Mary in Roman Catholic iconic representations.

There was an even older tradition with a guy named Utnapishtim, and he became a god.

Did he become an 'elohim', or a 'bene elohim'?

These oral traditions did not begin as Hebrew traditions, though. They began millennia before as Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Syro-Palestinian traditions.

I find this very interesting. I have often thought that God has used existing culture and evolved or molded it into a means to reveal truth from existing culture. Sort of like reorganizing one older preexisting fallen thing into another better regenerated thing. I think it is a repeating cycle motif.

All of this is an interesting thing to consider.

I never said there were, I just said academic approaches to biblical studies are far less biased than faith-based.

OK glad to hear this.

I generally only participate in academic discussions, and this thread is a purely academic discussion.

And yet you would not have such passion for this kind of academic discussion unless you were a man of faith- thinking these issues were of important to the faithful--- right?

[volgadon]

volgadon,

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.

Thanks for responding. My comments on the definition of scripture have nothing to do with how anyone here considers the Bible.

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.

One the face of it you seem to have raised a serious objection. A closer look at the text, I feel, reveals that this interpretation is far from tenuous.

The crowd intends to stone Jesus, a man, for making himself God. Jesus defends himself by pointing out that it is written in their "law" 'I said, Ye are gods?'

This alone should be enough to give one pause. Since when is Psalm 82:6 part of the Pentateuch, and why, if that is intended, does Christ use the pronoun "your"?

Lets for a moment assume that Christ didn't mean torah (not the Torah, torah as a body of teachings) but rather the books of the Bible. Where do we see anything in Psalm 82 about God's commandment coming unto men, thus making them gods?

He is obviously referencing an extra-biblical tradition (even if you don't accept that it is close to the midrash in Numbers Rabbah), and using this tradition about mortals being considered gods to defend his right to call himself son of God. If this teaching of theirs about men being called gods because God mad a decree unto them fits in with a Bible verse, then all the more so does one sanctified and sent by God himself have the right to call himself son of God.

They can make a prooftext work with their teaching, not that the text of the scriptures is without error.

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?

Who said that they did not view the scriptures as neccesarily true? We are talking inerrancy, not truth, or authority. The sages and early Christians subordinated scripture to their teachings, the oral law, not the other way round.

[ELF1024]

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?

All communication has two parts; what was said/written and what was understood by the person recieving it.

God would say something perfectly, and "pour" the understanding perfectly into (Bible Prophet); and the (Bible Prophet) would then attempt to communicate it either orally, or in written form to someone else. While the Lord's inital communication was perfect, there is no reason to expect that a man, even a Prophet of God, would be able to perfectly communicate the same to another person. Either because 1) a fault on the senders end 2) a fault on the recievers end.

Being a computer guy, I tend to think in things in terms of computers. In a network communication we have methods in place to ensure that transmissions are recieved perfect. When data is sent from one computer to another, the sending computer sends a packet of information, <verse of scripture here>, and then the reciever on the other end sends back a packet of information called a checksum, which is a mathematical equivlent of the data. The orignal sender then verifies that the checksum of the original data sent, and the one that the reciever sent, match. If they don't, an error is generated and the original packet is resent.

We don't have that kind of methodology as human beings. (Bible prophet) communicated the data, either by voice, or by written word, and we believe we understand it. We can't verify that we really do understand it as all (Bible prophets) are dead. All we can do is James 1:5 . The Lord will have to retransmit the correct data; as the original, no matter what, has been corrupted by men as we are human and fallible.

However, from the number of ways that differing people understand the same scripture, I'm not sure we ever can truely understand what was said. Of course this is assuming that a bible verse only has one correct meaning, which is another discussion.

Anyway, being imperfect people, there is no such thing as inerrancy.

[Hick Preacher]

All communication has two parts; what was said/written and what was understood by the person recieving it.

God would say something perfectly, and "pour" the understanding perfectly into (Bible Prophet); and the (Bible Prophet) would then attempt to communicate it either orally, or in written form to someone else. While the Lord's inital communication was perfect, there is no reason to expect that a man, even a Prophet of God, would be able to perfectly communicate the same to another person. Either because 1) a fault on the senders end 2) a fault on the recievers end.

Being a computer guy, I tend to think in things in terms of computers. In a network communication we have methods in place to ensure that transmissions are recieved perfect. When data is sent from one computer to another, the sending computer sends a packet of information, <verse of scripture here>, and then the reciever on the other end sends back a packet of information called a checksum, which is a mathematical equivlent of the data. The orignal sender then verifies that the checksum of the original data sent, and the one that the reciever sent, match. If they don't, an error is generated and the original packet is resent.

We don't have that kind of methodology as human beings. (Bible prophet) communicated the data, either by voice, or by written word, and we believe we understand it. We can't verify that we really do understand it as all (Bible prophets) are dead. All we can do is James 1:5 . The Lord will have to retransmit the correct data; as the original, no matter what, has been corrupted by men as we are human and fallible.

However, from the number of ways that differing people understand the same scripture, I'm not sure we ever can truely understand what was said. Of course this is assuming that a bible verse only has one correct meaning, which is another discussion.

Anyway, being imperfect people, there is no such thing as inerrancy.

Thanks ELF1024- I read you as saying that there is a Word of God that comes onto men, and reveals truth to them. This inspiration, ( the Word of the Lord) as with Jeremy 13--

8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.

10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.

11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

12

[ELF1024]

Thanks ELF1024- I read you as saying that there is a Word of God that comes onto men, and reveals truth to them. This inspiration, ( the Word of the Lord) as with Jeremy 13--

This is to say that the Word of the Lord as Jeremy got it was inerrant, but there may be problems with Jeremy delivering it. And once it is delivered, people neglect it and do not manage it properly-- so it degenerates.

I think that's 80% of it...

The Lord, or Holy Spirit communicates an idea to Jeremy inerrantly; Jeremy understands it; Jeremy then attempts to tell the people. The people may misunderstand Jeremy, or Jeremy may err in what he says. Once delivered, the information may become neglected and corrupted by faulty memory, etc.

The God-head is perfect, and the communication from them is perfect, until such time as it must be transalted/intrepreted/communicated by fallable man.

So, I guess you could say, that I agree with Inerrancy from God, before anything was ever written down or passed forth from man; but once man gets involved it is no longer Inerrant.

[maklelan]

I think that's 80% of it...

The Lord, or Holy Spirit communicates an idea to Jeremy inerrantly; Jeremy understands it; Jeremy then attempts to tell the people. The people may misunderstand Jeremy, or Jeremy may err in what he says. Once delivered, the information may become neglected and corrupted by faulty memory, etc.

Man is fallable

In linguistics these are the steps of decoding and recoding the concepts. Some people would argue that these two steps are also guided by inspiration, and thus also inerrant, but there's no reason to believe that, and it would effectively rob humanity of its agency. Your idea is similar to the Evangelical notion of accommodation, but most, if not all, who espouse that notion would argue the message is accommodated by God and then simply forced onto paper/clay/scroll/papyrus in spite of humanity. I would argue that accommodation is the outcome of the process you describe. God does not produce the accommodation, humans do as they try to understand and communicate the whisperings of the spirit (mingling it with their own worldviews).

[ELF1024]

In linguistics these are the steps of decoding and recoding the concepts. Some people would argue that these two steps are also guided by inspiration, and thus also inerrant, but there's no reason to believe that, and it would effectively rob humanity of its agency. Your idea is similar to the Evangelical notion of accommodation, but most, if not all, who espouse that notion would argue the message is accommodated by God and then simply forced onto paper/clay/scroll/papyrus in spite of humanity. I would argue that accommodation is the outcome of the process you describe. God does not produce the accommodation, humans do as they try to understand and communicate the whisperings of the spirit (mingling it with their own worldviews).

I would agree with your description of accommodation in how it realtes to inerrancy.

[Vance]

Just bumping this comment.

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.

[maklelan]

Just bumping this comment.

I might add the different accounts of who killed Goliath as well as God's killing all of Egypt's cattle in Exod 9:6 and then again in 9:25.

[Hick Preacher]

I might add the different accounts of who killed Goliath as well as God's killing all of Egypt's cattle in Exod 9:6 and then again in 9:25.

This is what the KJV only dudes say about the who killed Goliath--

As you see from this simple test, only two Bibles tell the truth about Goliath and Elhanan. David killed Goliath as we all know (I Sam. 17). The Holy Spirit tells us plainly that Elhanan, one of David's chosen men, killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath (I Chron. 20:5).

Who Really killed that Dude?

So anyway-- some EVs think that translation from one language or version to another is only done correctly by the Power of the Spirit in a translator.

[maklelan]

This is what the KJV only dudes say about the who killed Goliath--

Who Really killed that Dude?

So anyway-- some EVs think that translation from one language or version to another is only done correctly by the Power of the Spirit in a translator.

And I've already shown why the conclusion they reach is indefensible. That article's comments reveal their fallacy:

Is it not interesting that the King James Version had this figured out way back in 1611? Why do the modern Bibles lie when they record this well-known Bible fact? Why do the "scholars" mess up there?

The KJV is right because it preserves an inerrant view of scripture. Inerrancy is thus presupposed and becomes the fundamental measuring stick of accuracy--and this before we actually determine what the texts say. In other words, inerrancy is not a conclusion we arrive at, but an axiom that we must presuppose.

[Hick Preacher]

And I've already shown why the conclusion they reach is indefensible. That article's comments reveal their fallacy:

The KJV is right because it preserves an inerrant view of scripture. Inerrancy is thus presupposed and becomes the fundamental measuring stick of accuracy--and this before we actually determine what the texts say. In other words, inerrancy is not a conclusion we arrive at, but an axiom that we must presuppose.

It seems in this case with the KJV only sects, inerrancy is an axiom that is faith- based. And yes presupposed before investigated at length.

[Vance]

It seems in this case with the KJV only sects, inerrancy is an axiom that is faith belief- based. And yes presupposed before investigated at length.

Correction.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. With inerrancy there is no evidence.

[ELF1024]

Correction.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. With inerrancy there is evidence to the contrary.

Corrected for clarity

[Vance]

Corrected for clarity

That works too.

[Hick Preacher]

Correction.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. With inerrancy there is no evidence.

Well, the KJV folks are in effect claiming that the KJV has corrected errors by the power of the Spirit. This would be a similar claim made about the translation of the Book of Mormon. I am not sure what the KJV sects have to say about the doctrine of inerrancy.