On Inerrancy

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Ah, I'm glad someone brought up Jeremiah 36. Please see my article on this very subject, entitled "A Tale of Two Scrolls."

You're article doesn't answer my question. If Jeremiah's first scroll was inerrant, why did he have to change it in his second edition?

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

Sounds almost exactly like "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

A very astute observation. The difference is that evangelicals view the processes of transmission and translation as reliable enough that the Bible as we have it is trustworthy, and any apparent difficulties must be dealt with on the basis of the textual evidence that we have using sound reasoning. Most Mormons, on the other hand, are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word whenever they run into difficulty squaring it with their doctrine. They further typically feel free to suggest that the text of the Bible was not copied correctly simply because it contradicts LDS doctrine. Evangelicals don't do this.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Who says he "had" to change it? The point, which my article does make, is that Jeremiah was free to add to what he had earlier written because he was not adding to a canonical text, since the scroll that had been burned had not yet become canonical scripture.

I hope you will engage the argument of my article. I think it raises a significant problem for the LDS position.

You're article doesn't answer my question. If Jeremiah's first scroll was inerrant, why did he have to change it in his second edition?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Straw man alert. You obviously don't get my argument.

Or, perhaps, I just don't agree with it.

You wrote:

Let me simplify. If the Gospel or Mark is inerrant, why do Matthew and Luke change it in all sorts of ways when they quote it in their gospels? The fact that they make substantial changes to Mark in all sorts of ways indicates that they did not believe the Gospel of Mark to be inerrant.

I disagree. First, you are assuming that Matthew and Luke used Mark; this is widely accepted but not certain. Second, regardless of the Synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke did not alter the text of Mark. They wrote their own Gospel texts. Third, assuming Markan priority is correct, it does not follow that Matthew or Luke were disagreeing with or contradicting Mark. Such a conclusion assumes that the Gospel writers were attempting to provide the ipsissima verbi of Jesus and to provide strictly chronological accounts of Jesus' life. They clearly were not.

I seem to recall that you and I have been around this one before.

[Vance]

Bill,

Who says he "had" to change it? The point, which my article does make, is that Jeremiah was free to add to what he had earlier written because he was not adding to a canonical text, since the scroll that had been burned had not yet become canonical scripture.

I hope you will engage the argument of my article. I think it raises a significant problem for the LDS position.

Humm,

Something stinks about this statement.

From Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

with Exposition

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

And now we see the moving of the goal posts from "written by men" to "canonical".

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Who says he "had" to change it? The point, which my article does make, is that Jeremiah was free to add to what he had earlier written because he was not adding to a canonical text, since the scroll that had been burned had not yet become canonical scripture.

I hope you will engage the argument of my article. I think it raises a significant problem for the LDS position.

Let's not get distracted, shall we?

So are you telling me that texts are supposedly inerrant only after they have been canonized? (Why would the process of canonization render a text inerrant?)

Or are they supposedly inerrant because they are revealed from God?

Jeremiah's first text was a revelation from God (36.1-2). Was it inerrant?

Jeremiah's second text added to the first text (36.32). Why would an inerrant first edition require changing?

[Bill Hamblin]

A very astute observation. The difference is that evangelicals view the processes of transmission and translation as reliable enough that the Bible as we have it is trustworthy, and any apparent difficulties must be dealt with on the basis of the textual evidence that we have using sound reasoning. Most Mormons, on the other hand, are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word whenever they run into difficulty squaring it with their doctrine. They further typically feel free to suggest that the text of the Bible was not copied correctly simply because it contradicts LDS doctrine. Evangelicals don't do this.

Believing the Bible to be the word of God doesn't mean it is inerrant.

[ELF1024]

I can.

It goes like this.

1) Assume that any loss or corruption of the texts of "the law, or the prophets" constitutes destruction thereof.

2) Assume that "to fulfil" said law and prophets REQUIRES the availability of an accurate or inerrant copy thereof.

3) Assume that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" can ONLY take place with the availability of an accurate or inerrant copy thereof.

4) Conclusion: The Bible is inerrant.

See how easy it is?

That's alot of "assume", and incorrect ones at that...

[Vance]

That's alot of "assume", and incorrect ones at that...

Hey, stop raining on my parade.

[volgadon]

maklelan,

I asked how you know that Jesus never suggested that the scriptures were inerrant. You replied:

On your view of scripture, you cannot assert that Jesus never suggested that the scriptures were inerrant, because you have no way of reliably stating what Jesus believed. You can say that you don't see any such claim attributed to Jesus in the Bible as we have it, but you cannot reasonably assert that Jesus never suggested the idea if you don't have what you consider any reliable source of information about Jesus.

Of course, I think Matthew 5:17-18 and John 10:35 do "suggest," at the very least, that Scripture is inerrant, though this depends on the definition of inerrant. So I disagree with your premise.

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.

[Bill Hamblin]

I disagree. First, you are assuming that Matthew and Luke used Mark; this is widely accepted but not certain. Second, regardless of the Synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke did not alter the text of Mark. They wrote their own Gospel texts. Third, assuming Markan priority is correct, it does not follow that Matthew or Luke were disagreeing with or contradicting Mark. Such a conclusion assumes that the Gospel writers were attempting to provide the ipsissima verbi of Jesus and to provide strictly chronological accounts of Jesus' life. They clearly were not.

All of what you say is irrelevant to the question. All one needs to do is look at a synopsis to see that Matthew, Mark and Luke use exactly the same words on all sorts of occasions. Whatever is the original source for this, they are all clearly literarily interdependent. The fact that they do not quote whatever that source was verbatim indicates they did not believe that original source was inerrant. If they believed it was inerrant, they wouldn't have changed it. But the fact that they change it in all sorts of ways--sometimes changing the meaning--indicate that did not believe it inerrant. None of your arguments here engage that fact.

I seem to recall that you and I have been around this one before.

Yes, but it was a about a different issue, on whether scriptural texts were changed in relation to Revelation claiming no man can change his book.

[Vance]

Some corrections needed.

Most Mormons, on the other hand, are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word whenever they run into difficulty squaring the misinterpretion of it with their doctrine.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You asked:

Were inerrant, yes.

So they are currently not inerrant? Is that what you are saying?

Anyway, to avoid getting confused, the main point is that we do not have the original autographs. So, for me, all of this talk about inerrancy is pointless.

[Vance]

So they are currently not inerrant? Is that what you are saying?

Nah, what he is saying is that they DON'T exist. I guess the "orthodox" God couldn't preserve them or something.

[ELF1024]

Most Mormons, on the other hand, are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word whenever they run into difficulty squaring the misinterpretion of it with their doctrine.

I'm not sure that most or any Mormons are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word based on doctrinal conflict caused by a misinterpretion . I would say that most of us would just attempt to correct the proposed misinterpretion with the correct one. Misinterpretion is not the same as someone's wrongheaded idea based on correctly translated scripture.

[Vance]

I'm not sure that most or any Mormons are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word based on doctrinal conflict caused by a misinterpretion . I would say that most of us would just attempt to correct the proposed misinterpretion with the correct one. Misinterpretion is not the same as someone's wrongheaded idea based on correctly translated scripture.

Yeah, you are right.

The point I was attempting to make is that LDS Doctrine doesn't conflict with the Bible but rather the misinterpretation of the Bible.

[ElfLord]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

A very astute observation. The difference is that evangelicals view the processes of transmission and translation as reliable enough that the Bible as we have it is trustworthy, and any apparent difficulties must be dealt with on the basis of the textual evidence that we have using sound reasoning. Most Mormons, on the other hand, are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word whenever they run into difficulty squaring it with their doctrine. They further typically feel free to suggest that the text of the Bible was not copied correctly simply because it contradicts LDS doctrine. Evangelicals don't do this.

You apparently have not been watching the same EV vs Mormon debates/dialogs on the boards that I have.

[Vance]

You apparently have not been watching the same EV vs Mormon debates/dialogs on the boards that I have.

Yeah, just yesterday I was told that a scripture I posted didn't mean what it said.

[ElfLord]

Let's not get distracted, shall we?

So are you telling me that texts are supposedly inerrant only after they have been canonized? (Why would the process of canonization render a text inerrant?)

Or are they supposedly inerrant because they are revealed from God?

Jeremiah's first text was a revelation from God (36.1-2). Was it inerrant?

Jeremiah's second text added to the first text (36.32). Why would an inerrant first edition require changing?

Thus violating Duet 4:2.

[ELF1024]

Yeah, you are right.

The point I was attempting to make is that LDS Doctrine doesn't conflict (with) the Bible but rather the misinterpretation of the Bible.

... and that I would wholeheartedly agree with.

[Hick Preacher]

Biblical Inerrancy--

As some of you know I was socialized as a Mormon from age 18 to age 37-- then became an Evangelical-- then left the LDS Church. So my life experience and thoughts have been 'touched' and influenced a lot by once being 'Mormon'. I do not reject those years as being a Latter-day Saint as wasted-- but very educational. So I am not the usual 'Evangelical'-- but one nonetheless.

I spent years examining this issue before and after I became and Evangelical, thus while I was a Mormon. So here is my take about inerrancy- I hope this opinion is helpful to a better understanding in some way.

In my view term Biblical Inerrancy all by itself is not very descriptive. Because of this term alone means different things to different people. I go to Church with some guys who cite the Revelation 22:18-19 passages-- and would fight you in the Church parking lot it you disagreed with them. This Rev. 22 moronic diatribe and social contruct is part of a problem that holds people back from understanding the Bible. I got tired of fighting people in Church parking lots esp in bad weather-so I usually keep my mouth shut when this comes up.

LDS people often object the Inerrancy of scripture concept based on what inerrancy has been said to mean by certain

[ElfLord]

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.

Luke does this too...

Luke 20:36

Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

If I'm not mistaken, Angels are often colled gods in the Hebrew Bible and here men who are ressurected are made at a minimum... Equal to them. (I see a little Theosis going on here).

And so does John.

1 John 3

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall dsee him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

It's our very hope to become sons of God even gods.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hick Preacher, even if I were persuaded by your reasoning, what good would the doctrine of inerrancy do, and why doesn't the Bible itself promulgate the idea?

[ElfLord]

When the scribe asked Jesus what was the most important aspect of the commands of God in Mark 12. In doing so the scribe was in the process of determining Jesus

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote (emphasis yours):

Some corrections needed.

Most Mormons, on the other hand, are quick to suggest that a particular statement in the Bible is not God's word whenever they run into difficulty squaring the misinterpretion of {you mean, "misinterpretation" of} it with their doctrine.

No. What I said is factually correct; your revision is not. Consider the thread on the problem of squaring Joseph Smith's teaching that baptism and the laying on of hands must both precede the reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost with the report in Acts 10:44-48 that Cornelius and his household received the gift of the holy Ghost before they were baptized. Several Mormons in that thread were quite prepared to accept the idea that Acts was copied incorrectly or even that Luke himself was wrong. They agreed that Acts 10:44-48 says what I claimed, but argued that either the text was not copied correctly or Luke blew it. Thus, in favoring these explanations, they were conceding that I was interpreting the text of Acts 10 correctly -- but then simply rejected Acts 10.

By the way, they had only one reason for favoring these views: the assumption that Joseph Smith could not be wrong.