On Inerrancy

[Zakuska]

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.

From my experience they are usually the type that think even the very transmission of the text... Every Jot and Tittle was preserved perfectly.

One such example...

Proof 3: Preservation of the Text

Can we assume that a God who is able to inspire the Bible text can also ensure that it has been faithfully preserved and transmitted to us in the 21st century? Again, we can look at the claim of the Bible

[ELF1024]

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.

I don't believe that any claims of inerrancy have been directed towards the Book of Mormon. Actually, I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been as Mr. Bowman likes to point out in his "Book of Mormon is a Farce" article.

[Hick Preacher]

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.

Here is a WIKI on KJV only sects and a similar idea to inerrancy-

They think the KJV is somekind of restoration of the Bible in English!

King James Only inerrantists

A faction of those in the "The King-James-Only Movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts, largely as a result of work in the field of Textual Criticism. Upholders of the KJV-only position nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King-James-Only Movement asserts that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.

[Hick Preacher]

I don't believe that any claims of inerrancy have been directed towards the Book of Mormon. Actually, I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been as Mr. Bowman likes to point out in his "Book of Mormon is a Farce" article.

NO the same idea of inerrancy among certain Evangelicals is not directed by Mormons toward the Book of Mormon.

Likewise it appears that the KJV only sects do not seem to need to assign the idea of Inerrancy as an attribute to the KJV.

This is a clue about the ideas about the Bible and translations that may have have lead to modern descriptions of inerrancys by EVs. And why the doctrine may still be active today.

[Hick Preacher]

From my experience they are usually the type that think even the very transmission of the text... Every Jot and Tittle was preserved perfectly.

One such example...

http://www.tomorrows...item=1272766769

Oh brother!

Yeah about two months ago, was talking to a man from a KJV sect last month in a telephone job interview. They were looking for a Christian writer to create instruction for a KJV sect child's Sunday School curriculum. I was rejected for this job right-a-way for not believing that the KJV was a unique revelation from God that fixed all errors that ever happened to all the text down through history. This interviewer asked me up front about my beliefs about the KJV translation early on in the interview.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

It has already been established that I did not entitle the article "The Book of Mormon is a Farce."

I don't believe that any claims of inerrancy have been directed towards the Book of Mormon. Actually, I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been as Mr. Bowman likes to point out in his "Book of Mormon is a Farce" article.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

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.

Well.... here are my quick responses:

• The term "Law" sometimes was used broadly to refer to the whole of Jewish Scripture. For example, after speaking of "the Law and the Prophets," Jesus spoke more simply of "the Law," but the referent is the same (Matt. 5:17-18). This broader usage shows up elsewhere in John (e.g., 12:34; 15:25; see also 1 Cor. 14:21).
• Christ used the word "you" to emphasize that the Law on which the Jewish leaders prided themselves was the standard by which God would judge them.
• John 10 does not say that God's commandment coming unto men made them gods. It says that the word of God came to (or against) those who had been called gods.

Having cleared up these points, there remains no basis that I can see for concluding that Jesus must be referencing an extrabiblical tradition.

Finally, I still don't see how the interpretation of John 10 that you favor in any way undermines biblical inerrancy, since inerrancy does not preclude the use of extrabiblical materials or traditions.

[Zakuska]

Yeah about two months ago, was talking to a man from a KJV sect last month in a telephone job interview. They were looking for a Christian writer to create instruction for a KJV sect child's Sunday School curriculum. I was rejected for this job right-a-way for not believing that the KJV was a unique revelation from God that fixed all errors that ever happened to all the text down through history. This interviewer asked me up front about my beliefs about the KJV translation early on in the interview.

For another example...See RocMonkey in my tag line that used to post here many moons ago.

|

V

[maklelan]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Well.... here are my quick responses:

• The term "Law" sometimes was used broadly to refer to the whole of Jewish Scripture. For example, after speaking of "the Law and the Prophets," Jesus spoke more simply of "the Law," but the referent is the same (Matt. 5:17-18). This broader usage shows up elsewhere in John (e.g., 12:34; 15:25; see also 1 Cor. 14:21).
• Christ used the word "you" to emphasize that the Law on which the Jewish leaders prided themselves was the standard by which God would judge them.
• John 10 does not say that God's commandment coming unto men made them gods. It says that the word of God came to (or against) those who had been called gods.

Having cleared up these points, there remains no basis that I can see for concluding that Jesus must be referencing an extrabiblical tradition.

Finally, I still don't see how the interpretation of John 10 that you favor in any way undermines biblical inerrancy, since inerrancy does not preclude the use of extrabiblical materials or traditions.

Scholarship is unanimous that John 10:34-35 is referring to an extra-biblical reading of the text, and the majority favor the Sinai tradition as the basis of his particular reading. A secondary reading has the psalm referencing Adam and Eve in Eden. Another reading that failed to gain much ground held that Jesus was making reference to Second Temple notions of lower level divinity, like Melchizedek in 11Q13 II.10-11. I don't believe I've ever seen an actual argument in favor of some other reading in print or online, and one would have to provide a defensible alternative reading in order to assert the Sinai/Eden readings are inadequate. If you've provided an argument against those readings and for another reading, I haven't seen it, but would like to.

If anyone is interested in this particular topic, see the following publications:

John A. Emerton,

[Zakuska]

A secondary reading has the psalm referencing Adam and Eve in Eden.

The first time I read it thats exactly what came to my mind. And back when the board was FAIR some one asked me to give my interpretation of the Psalm and thats exactly How I explained it.

[Hick Preacher]

For another example...See RocMonkey in my tag line that used to post here many moons ago.

|

V

Various people have beliefs about the Bible. These beliefs related to 'Inerrancy" have to do with the notion that scripture is to be accessed to decide upon matters of doctrine. That is the ultimate utility of all ideas of Inerrancy-- or beliefs that one's scriptures are reliable.

KJV sects are interesting in their view of the Bible. I recently became aware that many of them actually believe that the KJV is an inspired new restored text. Sort of like believing that the KJV original was a kind of autograph- but in English.

One thing that seems to be held common between EVs and LDS is the idea that there is an influence from Almighty God called "The Word of God". This Word of God upholds the universe, is associated with creation, and was a mechanism related to the authoring of scripture.

Some EVs believe that this Word of God also selected the very words written in the autographs. Other EVs believe that this Word of God was with scribes who made copies, and even translators to inspire a preservation of the texts.

And a few like KJV sects, believe that their English version is an inspired restoration in English.

Even LDS Leadeship has a kind of quasi-inerrancy:

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954

[Hick Preacher]

The first time I read it thats exactly what came to my mind. And back when the board was FAIR some one asked me to give my interpretation of the Psalm and thats exactly How I explained it.

Yes I have heard that some thought PS 82 referred to Adam and Eve as these gods.

But I have always figured that these were the sons of God who presented themselves to the Lord in the Book of Job for inspection. And these sons of God eventually received a very poor job evaluation( not pun intended) indicated in PS 82, and the got fired from their jobs. They were punished by being cast down to a lower tier or sphere (aka realm) of the universe. I suppose that these sons of God were some kind of adopted sons who are creatures of old- who were created sometime before the Almighty created this world/universe out of the waters of creation (mound of creation) when time began ( as we in this sphere/tier know and understand time.)

I guess some consider these gods to be Adam and Eve because some sort of FALL of creatures is associated with Psalm 82.

I figured that Jesus referred to PS82 in John 34 because if the Jews did not even understand who the sons of God were in the previous epoch, then they did not even know enough to ever pass judgement on someone who claimed to be a son of God at that time in Jerusalem-( like Jesus). ( Jesus was calling them morons )

At times I have wondered if elaborated information of the situation pictured in PS 82 existed in extra-biblical writings-- because Jesus calls the reference the Law as where it was written--- but probably-"Law" is just a general term. But notice how Jesus said that these beings were called gods because the Word of God came on them. They were adopted as gods- not Gods by nature.

[Vance]

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.

It appears that Bowman has fled the scene.

[ELF1024]

It appears that Bowman has fled the scene.

I guess inerrancy is just a buzz word now.

Forget about buzz words like "inerrancy" for the moment.

[Hick Preacher]

I guess inerrancy is just a buzz word now.

Rob went over to School of the Pundits to discuss this issue. Its a private fight club over in that forum.

Here is an article that provides some insights into the use of the term 'inerrancy' in Ev culture.

http://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html

It discusses the invention of the term- why it was first coined- and other ways to affirm the high value of scripture without insisting on inerrancy.

For example it explains the etiology of the formation of the modern idea of Inerrancy

The defenders,(my note: of the Bible) on quite different grounds than empirical evidence, assumed that the Bible was true as a starting point. No problem there, at least from the perspective of faith confession. But the defense took shape as a logical syllogism that worked backward toward the rationalists. Since the Bible is true as an assumption, and since only verifiable historical events can be true (thus accepting the premise of the rationalists), then the Bible must contain only actual and verifiable historical events and can contain no error. Thus inerrancy as a very rationalistic response to the rationalists was born.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

As you know, I'm working on responding to these issues in the Pundit forum, where we can discuss matters without the distracting goofiness that tends to run amok here. And I am curious to know what difference it would make if these four difficulties could be cleared up to your satisfaction.

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]

Rob went over to School of the Pundits to discuss this issue. Its a private fight club over in that forum.

Here is an article that provides some insights into the use of the term 'inerrancy' in Ev culture.

http://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html

It discusses the invention of the term- why it was first coined- and other ways to affirm the high value of scripture without insisting on inerrancy.

For example it explains the etiology of the formation of the modern idea of Inerrancy

I have to take issue with some of the premises of that article. For instance, it summarizes the skeptical approach to certain biblical events as follows:

The scientific premise that forms the basis for modern historiography, and the basis for challenge by skeptics, is that only empirically verifiable events can be accepted as true. They contended that since many biblical events could not be verified by external documents or records or empirical data to have happened, then they never happened. Therefore, the accounts were not true and were therefore in error (I won

[maklelan]

maklelan,

As you know, I'm working on responding to these issues in the Pundit forum, where we can discuss matters without the distracting goofiness that tends to run amok here. And I am curious to know what difference it would make if these four difficulties could be cleared up to your satisfaction.

If those four difficulties could be cleared up to my satisfaction then I would be happy to reexamine the merits of inerrancy.

[Vance]

Rob went over to School of the Pundits to discuss this issue. Its a private fight club over in that forum.

Very interesting read.

Although, we are STILL waiting for Bowman to respond to the issues that were raised some time ago.

[Hick Preacher]

I have to take issue with some of the premises of that article. For instance, it summarizes the skeptical approach to certain biblical events as follows:

But this isn't the premise underlying modern historiography. One of the primary scientific premises that supports historiography is that events and concepts need to be empirically falsifiable. Historiography isn't about proving anything true, it's about plotting events and ideas along a spectrum of probability, and the only real absolute line that bifurcates that spectrum is the line of falsification. Theories have currency until they are proven false. All the miracles of the Bible as well as the majority of the more mundane events are not falsifiable. We can only use data within and without the text to plot the probability of these events, and without data supporting things like the parting of the Red Sea, or Elijah calling down fire from heaven, there's no reason to accept their historicity. Additionally, most of the miracles have plenty of data which problematize accepting their historicity. For instance, there's no evidence anywhere that any sizable group of slaves left Egypt and spent 40 years wandering the desert. All of the archaeological data firmly undermines the historicity of that event.

Literary considerations also need to be made. The story of the Exodus has numerous indications of a provenance much later than the events it purports to share. Moses is told God's name, Yhwh, is being revealed for the first time in human history, but Moses' mother had a Yahwistic name. Additionally, the onomastic evidence shows the appearance of Yahwistic names and the sharp rise in their popularity in the first millennium BCE, not the second. The story of the Exodus oddly appeals to jargon that is peculiar in Exodus, but is also found in the books of Kings. For instance, Aaron makes a golden calf and says, "These (plural) are the gods (plural) who brought you up out of Egypt." Jeroboam says the same thing of the plural calves he set up in the northern and southern extremities of his kingdom. Which seems like the original context for the phrase? When Joshua held up the waters of the Jordan so the Israelites could cross the river to take Jericho, that event served a very clear rhetorical purpose. It mirrors Moses' parting of the Red Sea and rhetorically asserts divine approbation of the transferal of authority. The text is saying Joshua truly was Moses' successor. Numerous other literary and historical considerations point to the first millennium BCE as the time period in which the story was originally composed, not the second. All these data combine to render the likelihood that the Exodus is historical rather low.

Are you saying that Ezra edited the Torah--?

That is, Ezra drew from many sources (JEDP) in the reconstruction of the Hebrew scriptures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Esdras

Search Ezra in this wiki entry on JEDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis#P.2C_Priestly_source

Some say they are certain that Ezra collated the final version of the Torah.

[maklelan]

Are you saying that Ezra edited the Torah--?

That is, Ezra drew from many sources (JEDP) in the reconstruction of the Hebrew scriptures?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Esdras

Search Ezra in this wiki entry on JEDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis#P.2C_Priestly_source

Some say they are certain that Ezra collated the final version of the Torah.

If the account is accurate, he certainly could have had a hand in it, but I think much of it was, for the most part, in its current shape by that time.

[Hick Preacher]

If the account is accurate, he certainly could have had a hand in it, but I think much of it was, for the most part, in its current shape by that time.

Ezra compiling the Torah is the old traditional and ancient Christian explanation for the OT restoration and canon.

Irenaeus says: "God . . . inspired Esdras, the priest of the tribe of Levi, to compose anew all the discourses of the ancient prophets, and to restore to the people the laws given them by Moses" ("Ecclesiastical History," Book V., chap. viii).

So at least some Christians believed that God inspired Ezra to edit the Old Testament into its current condition.

[ElfLord]

I guess inerrancy is just a buzz word now.

It was just a buzz word the minute the Chicago dilly-whopper defused, twisted and streched the definition of "wihtout error" beyond all recognition.

[Vance]

Some EVs believe that this Word of God also selected the very words written in the autographs. Other EVs believe that this Word of God was with scribes who made copies, and even translators to inspire a preservation of the texts.

It is interesting to me that a group of people, that as a whole, believe that the canon is closed, and therefore not a single one of them has actually received scripture, can claim with such fervency, that they know how the process actually works.

[Vance]

http://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html

It discusses the invention of the term- why it was first coined- and other ways to affirm the high value of scripture without insisting on inerrancy.

For example it explains the etiology of the formation of the modern idea of Inerrancy

Very interesting read so far. I found this part fun.

So, this view of the inerrancy of Scripture was developed both from the pressures of culture, as well as from some very specific theological agendas. The Bible is then read through the lens of a doctrine developed totally outside Scripture itself, and often without taking seriously the evidence within Scripture. As a result, the Bible is often made to serve the doctrine of inerrancy, a move which runs counter to one of the primary tenants of the Reformation, that Scripture should be the primary authority for the faith and practice of the Christian community, not doctrines.

The reality is that the whole issue of inerrancy, as well as how some now define infallibility, is alien to the Wesleyan tradition for several theological and historical reasons. The modern concept of inerrancy, and it is a modern concept, arises out of Calvinistic based fundamentalism as it blended a basic position in predeterminism (predestination) with a narrow rationalism to defend Scripture (the "Battle for the Bible") against the excesses of scientific positivism and naturalism.

While the motive may have been entirely valid, since there certainly were some excesses from the side of naturalism and rationalistic modes of thought, I think there developed a serious overreaction in the opposite direction. The defenders of Scripture began asserting things about Scripture that neither the Bible itself nor some of the theological positions outside of a narrowly interpreted Calvinism can possibly sustain.

Edited to add,

I really like this quote.

One can only affirm inerrant autographs as inspired by assuming a view of inspiration that produces inerrant autographs.

Emphasis mine.