On Inerrancy

[thesometimesaint]

Hick Preacher:

That is really a double standard. Until relatively recently little to nothing was known of Biblical lands. That did not prevent people for nearly two millenia believing the Bible true in its theological principles.

[Hick Preacher]

Obviously History MUST be wrong because the Bible never could be!

Why would such things be critical to the Biblical Themes of Salvation?

Certain scriptural narratives exists showing what someone of that era thought about history and culture- or even the cosmos--- in ancient terms. This provides for a modern reader clues as to how to interpret other features of Gospel accounts- like when Jesus ascended- or descriptions of heaven. If we did not have some historical narrative the Gospel and letters would look like utter mush because we would be tempted to apply only an modern interpretations of recorded events.

[Hick Preacher]

upload error-- no inerrancy here

[Hick Preacher]

upload error-- no inerrancy here

[Zakuska]

Why would such things be critical to the Biblical Themes of Salvation?

Certain scriptural narratives exists showing what someone of that era thought about history and culture- or even the cosmos--- in ancient terms. This provides for a modern reader clues as to how to interpret other features of Gospel accounts- like when Jesus ascended- or descriptions of heaven. If we did not have some historical narrative the Gospel and letters would look like utter mush because we would be tempted to apply only an modern interpretations of recorded events.

If such errors exist, in the histories, where Bible inerrantists have been claiming there are none. What does that say about their over all claim and apprasals in the portions on spiritual matters?

[Hick Preacher]

Hick Preacher:

That is really a double standard. Until relatively recently little to nothing was known of Biblical lands. That did not prevent people for nearly two millenia believing the Bible true in its theological principles.

Not really a double standard--even in Jesus' time to now--continuously the times of the late Bronze age has been concretely and tangibilly evidenced--i.e.- known that Egypt really existed--as a nation as we see it in scripture. Likewise with the Mediterranean region regions, peoples,cultures and nations. Esp the Roman Empire and its Jerusalem region. Much has been discovered specifically as of recent since the mid-19th century-- but even going back to the time of the post-exile( 400 B.C.), there has been a knowledge with tangible evidence that the peoples of the Bible by and large were real living peoples in real identifiable geographic place on the Earth.

History has not made the direct coorelation between ancient Mesoamericans and Book of Mormon descriptions of people. I believe though that certain Native Americans at least had contact with the Old World-- and even certain Hebrew beliefs and traditions-- this can be seen in a few traditions of Hopi and Cherokees.

When Israel was a Nation-- Gospel Principles were supported nationally- by Kings and Priests. This gave structure and unity-- the glue to hold the religious culture together.

In the time of tribal patriarchy, family units and tribes provided the glue. Polygamy played a role in cementing people together in to one unified loyal family- that held the religion of the culture together.

[Hick Preacher]

If such errors exist, in the histories, where Bible inerrantists have been claiming there are none. What does that say about their over all claim and apprasals in the portions on spiritual matters?

Kentucky fundamentalists who bring snakes to Church deny that dinosaurs existed too- they have a kind of inerrant-ism orientation. They do so based on the ending of the Gospel of Mark.

I do not bring a snake to Church. I think there were really dinosaurs.

If you try and tell snake handlers different-- they will beat you up in the church parking lot-- and release their rattlers on you.

As time advances, and more is learned about History reasonable and Spirit filled people gain knowledge and incorporate truth into their belief system. But some people like their snakes more than knowledge and truth. Some day it will bite them-- and they will die.

[Vance]

If such errors exist, in the histories, where Bible inerrantists have been claiming there are none. What does that say about their over all claim and apprasals in the portions on spiritual matters?

Are you saying that the same source that gave them the false doctrine of "inerrancy" could have also effected similar types of doctrine?

That IS food for thought.

[Hick Preacher]

Are you saying that the same source that gave them the false doctrine of "inerrancy" could have also effected similar types of doctrine?

That IS food for thought.

The LDS Priesthood in the Mormon tribe is an analog of sorts to Inerrancy in the Protestant tribe.

[Vance]

The LDS Priesthood in the Mormon tribe is an analog of sorts to Inerrancy in the Protestant tribe.

Not in the least. We have witnesses to the events surrounding the restoration of the priesthood. They have zip, ZERO, nada!!!!

AND, Priesthood IS found in both the Old and New Testaments, unlike inerrancy.

[ElfLord]

If you try and tell snake handlers different-- they will beat you up in the church parking lot-- and release their rattlers on you.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

and all that jazz.

[Hick Preacher]

Not in the least. We have witnesses to the events surrounding the restoration of the priesthood. They have zip, ZERO, nada!!!!

AND, Priesthood IS found in both the Old and New Testaments, unlike inerrancy.

Oh maybe that "priesthood" is an interpolation added in the 10th century. (Just kidding).

The word 'priests' is found in the Bible-- but---I think the LDS priesthood differs from those Biblical Priesthoods-- but I do have this idea for you.

Mormonism as a system does not need inerrancy of scripture to function. This is because of the role of the LDS Priesthood. Likewise Mormonism would stumble if it used creeds because it is multi-valent or pluralistic in nature.

The word Orthodoxy suggests a non-plural system of religion. Mormonism is not orthodox because it is pluralistc. People speak of Mormon orthodoxy only as a figure of speech. To be orthodox is associated with being primarily monistic in worldview.

Inerrancy tends to be monistic in its outlook of scripture that is it is a non-pluralistic approach to the scriptures-- but not completely monistic.

Inerrancy of the Bible is somewhat non-compatible with how Mormonism uses its sacred sources information. This is connected with Mormonism claiming to be creedless right down to Joseph Smiths first vision as seen in JS-H.

[Deborah]

I take it the answer to my question is that you haven't read any books by evangelical scholars explaining and advocating biblical inerrancy. Therefore, your opinion that all inerrantists must be ignoramuses is itself an opinion based on ignorance (Prov. 18:13).

Since the issue is inerrancy and not what a particular group has to say on the subject I'm not sure why I would need to read an evangelist's view on the subject when there are so many other scholars with whom I agree. But even without scholarly opinion it is obvious in reading the Bible that there are things which are missing. And that was the point of my statement. One doesn't need scholarly input to recognize the problems.

Once again I make the point that the fact that there are so many different views on what the scripture means is evidence that something is missing which otherwise could clarify the meaning, which of course is something Joseph Smith did. His translations and interpretations make so much more sense than anything else I've ever read.

Ignoramous is your word, not mine. Once doesn't have to be ignorant to come to the wrong conclusion. In fact I would dare say that the issue is more one of twisting the facts to justify one's position than being ignorant of the facts.

[Hick Preacher]

By their fruits ye shall know them.

and all that jazz.

I do not know how well these snake Christians conduct themselves in their Christian lives. I bet they do not have a rodent problem around the house though.

[Vance]

The word Orthodoxy suggests a non-plural system of religion.

How so? The word orthodoxy suggests some sort of accepted/established faith. So are you talking about Catholic orthodoxy, or Eastern orthodoxy, or Protestant orthodoxy or Mormon orthodoxy?

To be orthodox is associated with being primarily monistic in worldview.

By whom? By those that claim inerrancy? By those that reject inerrancy?

Inerrancy of the Bible is somewhat non-compatible with how Mormonism uses its sacred sources information.

Inerrancy is also incompatible with the Bible.

[Bill Hamblin]

Matthew 5:17-18

John 10:35

[sorry, the formatting didn't work; I redid it.]

First, neither of these passages explicitly proclaim inerrancy. The Bible neither explicitly affirms nor explicitly rejects inerrancy.

It is interesting that you would bring up this passage.

Mt 5.17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away,

not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Lk 16.16-7

The Law and the Prophets were until John;

since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached,

and everyone forces his way into it.

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away

than for one dot of the Law to become void.

Note the differences between the texts. Matthew says the Law and Prophets have not been abolished. Luke says the Law and Prophets were until John. Which is correct? Which of these two texts is inerrant? Why did Matthew and or Luke modify their sources so we end up with two different versions of the same saying. It is interesting that you claim this text as advocating inerrancy (it is actually talking about the efficacy of Jewish Law, not its inerrancy), yet the very text you say supports inerrancy undermines it when you actually look at the variants.

Stranger and stranger.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

First, neither of these passages explicitly proclaim inerrancy. The Bible neither explicitly affirms nor explicitly rejects inerrancy.

It is interesting that you would bring up this passage.

Mt 5.17-18 Lk 16.16-17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; The Law and the Prophets were until John;

since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached,

and everyone forces his way into it.

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away

not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. than for one dot of the Law to become void.

Note the differences between the texts. Matthew says the Law and Prophets have not been abolished. Luke says the Law and Prophets were until John. Which is correct? Which of these two texts is inerrant? Why did Matthew and or Luke modify their sources so we end up with two different versions of the same saying. It is interesting that you claim this text as advocating inerrancy (it is actually talking about the efficacy of Jewish Law, not its inerrancy), yet the very text you say supports inerrancy undermines it when you actually look at the variants.

Stranger and stranger.

Well there goes that one. I will note that the reading of these 2 passages effects doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

That is really a double standard. Until relatively recently little to nothing was known of Biblical lands.

Not so. Quite a few locations mentioned in the Bible have been known to us throughout the past two millennia or longer. We have always known where to find Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Tyre, Antioch, Athens, Corinth, Rome, the Jordan River, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the Nile River, the Sea of Galilee, the Great (Mediterranean) Sea, Mt. Gerizim, Mt. Carmel, Egypt, the Sinai desert, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Arabia, Babylonia, Crete, Cyprus, Malta, and Spain.

[Hick Preacher]

How so? The word orthodoxy suggests some sort of accepted/established faith. So are you talking about Catholic orthodoxy, or Eastern orthodoxy, or Protestant orthodoxy or Mormon orthodoxy?

By whom? By those that claim inerrancy? By those that reject inerrancy?

Inerrancy is also incompatible with the Bible.

Because Orthodoxy as a word has an etymology that suggests monism. It means straight way-- or right- a - way. Like a one way street.

To say the Bible is without critical errors is in compatible with itself?

Vance that comment is an oxymoron.

[ElfLord]

First, neither of these passages explicitly proclaim inerrancy. The Bible neither explicitly affirms nor explicitly rejects inerrancy.

It is interesting that you would bring up this passage.

Mt 5.17-18 Lk 16.16-17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; The Law and the Prophets were until John;

since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached,

and everyone forces his way into it.

I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away

not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. than for one dot of the Law to become void.

Note the differences between the texts. Matthew says the Law and Prophets have not been abolished. Luke says the Law and Prophets were until John. Which is correct? Which of these two texts is inerrant? Why did Matthew and or Luke modify their sources so we end up with two different versions of the same saying. It is interesting that you claim this text as advocating inerrancy (it is actually talking about the efficacy of Jewish Law, not its inerrancy), yet the very text you say supports inerrancy undermines it when you actually look at the variants.

Stranger and stranger.

Tell me about it... and then Evangelicals claim that... No Major doctrine is touched or altered by variant readings!

[Bill Hamblin]

Well, for starters, assertions like "Paul's doctrine of justification by faith is contradicted by James" or "the Old Testament presents the exodus miracles as fact although the reality is they didn't happen" or even a generality such as "Scripture contains errors and cannot always be counted on to tell us the truth."

Or perhaps, "And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men."

So you need explicit statements rejecting inerrancy, but accept inferences supporting inerrancy. Do I scent a whiff of special pleading?

Evangelicals expend a great deal of effort trying to discover the exact wording of the autographs of the NT. They have examined every manuscript, collated every variant reading, made extensive arguments for one reading over another, etc. That is what one would expect of a believer in inerrancy.

On the other hand, Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark (assuming Markan priority for the moment). They may have actually held in their hand the autograph of Mark; at the very least a first generation copy. But while Evangelical believers in inerrancy do everything they can to discover, preserve and transmit the original text of Mark, what do both Matthew and Luke do? Despite the fact that they have the original or near original, they feel free to add to, remove and change the text in all sorts of ways, many of them significant and sometimes contradictory.

Despite all your arguments about what Matthew and Luke were doing (with which I basically agree), I do not see them treating the text of Mark as a believer in inerrancy would treat it. The unavoidable conclusion is that Matthew and Luke did not believe the text of Mark was inerrant.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I don't think these two texts (Matt. 5:17-18 and Luke 16:16-17) are "two different versions of the same saying." I think, specifically, that Matthew 5:17 and Luke 16:16 are two entirely different sayings of Jesus addressing different issues and making different points. It is possible that Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 originate from a single saying, but this is uncertain, and even if it is so, that doesn't mean the statements preceding originate from one saying.

[ElfLord]

I do not know how well these snake Christians conduct themselves in their Christian lives. I bet they do not have a rodent problem around the house though.

Well not very well if they try and beat you up in the parking lot.

[ElfLord]

Bill,

I don't think these two texts (Matt. 5:17-18 and Luke 16:16-17) are "two different versions of the same saying." I think, specifically, that Matthew 5:17 and Luke 16:16 are two entirely different sayings of Jesus addressing different issues and making different points. It is possible that Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 originate from a single saying, but this is uncertain, and even if it is so, that doesn't mean the statements preceding originate from one saying.

Irrelevant Rob. Wether two sayings or one saying they both can't be true.

Did the law end with John or shall it continue till all be fulfilled?

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

I don't think these two texts (Matt. 5:17-18 and Luke 16:16-17) are "two different versions of the same saying." I think, specifically, that Matthew 5:17 and Luke 16:16 are two entirely different sayings of Jesus addressing different issues and making different points. It is possible that Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 originate from a single saying, but this is uncertain, and even if it is so, that doesn't mean the statements preceding originate from one saying.

OK. So which one is inerrant?