On Inerrancy

[maklelan]

Mak-- the Chicago Statement itself is of course up for interpretations.

I do not find the Chicago Statement at odds with what I have discovered in my readings supporting inerrancy. I am by and large OK with the Chicago Statement. But I do take my creative liberties, and interpret such statements loosely.

From my exposure from readings of Apologetics for Inerrancy, the idea is best expressed with how certain NT books have been reconstructed by comparison of readings of the earliest manuscript fragments. These readings corroborated with old copies from the various era of historical Christianity. Consistencies and inconsistencies are logged for analysis. And from these comparisons original readings are extrapolated to create a restored text. Apologists claim that these processes reproduce accurate facsimiles. Confidence in the accuracy is assured when a New Testament book as an early copies have been discovered to have been anciently distributed in considerable numbers over wide geographic regions. Examinations of a number of texts from various locations of such distributions serve to detect any variations in texts that could have been made by various sectarian biases and paraphrases(interpolations), or random scribal errors.

But modern sectarian biases are equally at play in these reconstructions as they were in the original manipulation of the texts, and attempting to triangulate an autograph from multiple copies of unknown relationship to that autograph is utter speculation. What that results in is an original text that simply aligns the variants with a specific theological position (which happens to be a modern one). This is not objective or reliable in any sense.

I think that James simply in a deliberate, biased and paraphrased manner recited a modified version of Amos 9 from the LXX.

In order to show this you would have to be able to show he was familiar with the Hebrew reading of Amos 9. Can you do that, or is this simply a priori speculation? If the latter, it is hardly a legitimate rebuttal to my argument.

James is accurately recorded by way of the restored/preserved text to be making a verbal interpolation, about Gentiles and David

[maklelan]

With the initiation of proper worship in the Hebrew Temple by Maccabee until the destruction of the Temple is an aeon or era among ages.

See above.

Many have reckoned that this saying means the return of Christ from Heaven to Earth- the end of the late great planet Earth ( but it is not that at all).

Luke 21

But when we understand proto-early Israel

[maklelan]

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.

I disagree. One claims heaven and earth will pass away before a single letter of the law will become irrelevant. The other says although it would be as difficult for heaven and earth to pass away as it would be for one letter of the law to become irrelevant, it happened when John started preaching. Two absolutely conflicting ideologies. One says the law will last as long as heaven and earth lasts, the other says it ended when John started preaching. They are making different points, but they are addressing the exact same issue.

[Bill Hamblin]

I disagree. One claims heaven and earth will pass away before a single letter of the law will become irrelevant. The other says although it would be as difficult for heaven and earth to pass away as it would be for one letter of the law to become irrelevant, it happened when John started preaching. Two absolutely conflicting ideologies. One says the law will last as long as heaven and earth lasts, the other says it ended when John started preaching. They are making different points, but they are addressing the exact same issue.

Yup. And this text is supposed to establish inerrancy how?

[Vance]

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

Nothing like MOVING the goal posts.

Inerrancy, the claim that a collection of documents that have clearly been shown to have doctrinal contradictions, is free from error, is incompatible with that collection of documents that have clearly been shown to have doctrinal contradictions (the Bible).

How is that statement an oxymoron?

[Hick Preacher]

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

In some cultures they think a good lick'in is good for the eternal soul.

I have seen these kind of Churches in Arkansas-- and other ones that have a sigh posted "do not bring a snake to Church".

[Hick Preacher]

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

I do think that these two passages are records of the same saying of Jesus in the same setting or context.

And Bill's commentary on them was careless and reckless. Even snake handlers in Arkansas are not that reckless in Church. I wonder if Bill is just trying to pull our leg and is joking around here.

[ElfLord]

I do think that these two passages are records of the same saying of Jesus in the same setting or context.

And Bill's commentary on them was careless and reckless. Even snake handlers in Arkansas are not that reckless in Church. I wonder if Bill is just trying to pull our leg and is joking around here.

See my last post... it's irrelevant if they are two sayings or one saying. They say something that contradicts the other.

[Anakin7]

Nothing like MOVING the goal posts.

Inerrancy, the claim that a collection of documents that have clearly been shown to have doctrinal contradictions, is free from error, is incompatible with that collection of documents that have clearly been shown to have doctrinal contradictions (the Bible).

How is that statement an oxymoron?

I live close to the Anchient Biblical manuscript center located nearby in Claremont Ca and have taken the Missionaries there for a # of 1 Hr talks there by the former Director of the center [ A Baptist ]. The director stated with no hesitation that Biblical Inerrancy is not true as concerning the Holy Bible. He has examined the manuscripts closely and has stated there are 200,00- 300,00 varient readings which do show errors/mistakes in the Biblical text. He is a believer in the Bible still even thou he has examined problems within the manuscripts.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[ElfLord]

I live close to the Anchient Biblical manuscript center located nearby in Claremont Ca and have taken the Missionaries there for a # of 1 Hr talks there by the former Director of the center [ A Baptist ]. The director stated with no hesitation that Biblical Inerrancy is not true as concerning the Holy Bible. He has examined the manuscripts closely and has stated there are 200,00- 300,00 varient readings which do show errors/mistakes in the Biblical text. He is a believer in the Bible still even thou he has examined problems within the manuscripts.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

HALELUJAH!

Which well he should be...

2 Corinthians 3:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Bible Innerrancy is putting the Letter/Law above the Spirit!

[Hick Preacher]

Thanks MAK on the long response-- I will have to look at it later

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In some cultures they think a good lick'in is good for the eternal soul.

I miss being out in WV. THey are good people out there even though some like to play with snakes at church. The memories.

[Hick Preacher]

See my last post... it's irrelevant if they are two sayings or one saying. They say something that contradicts the other.

If you are familiar with OT and NT themes, I find it interesting that you see these two as even inconsistent one to another.

Even the passage that says Law and the Prophets until John- notes that "...it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void."

The other says that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law.

"Until John..."-- does not say that the law was abolished until John-- rather suggests a change in emphasis or role of the law at that time.

17

[Hick Preacher]

I miss being out in WV. THey are good people out there even though some like to play with snakes at church. The memories.

Yes Good folks-

I mention this because fundamentalists like snake handlers have a very radical view of the Bible- and it being alive and perfect--even magic-- certainly perfect and exact word for word exactly as God spoke it to the letter.

Their view has become legendary and at times has been transfered to many others of the Christian faith in general. Such legends cause some to think that all Christians have such a radical view of the nature of the Bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes Good folks-

I mention this because fundamentalists like snake handlers have a very radical view of the Bible- and it being alive and perfect--even magic-- certainly perfect and exact word for word exactly as God spoke it to the letter.

Their view has become legendary and at times has been transfered to many others of the Christian faith in general. Such legends cause some to think that all Christians have such a radical view of the nature of the Bible.

The interesting thing for me, is that I admire their faith. I don't hold their views. I really enjoy that they are living their religion.

[Deborah]

He has examined the manuscripts closely and has stated there are 200,00- 300,00 varient readings which do show errors/mistakes in the Biblical text. He is a believer in the Bible still even thou he has examined problems within the manuscripts.

This is why I wonder why this issue is so critical to certain people. Even the BOM authors state that if there are errors they are the errors of men but that doesn't detract from the message of the text.

I love the Bible with all it's flaws and it matters not that some imperfect men may not have written or translated correctly when the spirit of the text is what matters.

[ElfLord]

The interesting thing for me, is that I admire their faith. I don't hold their views. I really enjoy that they are living their religion.

However... they are the types that end up bombing Abortion clinics and beeting people up in the parking lot for not toeing the line on Bible innerrancy. It's these types that chased Bart Erhman out of the house.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

However... they are the types that end up bombing Abortion clinics and beeting people up in the parking lot for not toeing the line on Bible innerrancy. It's these types that chased Bart Erhman out of the house.

I confess that I did not know the context to Hick's post. It just made me think of the years before.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

I felt that Michael Grisanti did quite well at setting forth the evangelical approach to biblical inerrancy in his article "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture" published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44 (2001): 577-598 (not that I agreed with the arguments).

Grisanti maintains that subsequent to the initial writing of a biblical book, a "God-chosen individual under the superintendance of the Holy Spirit could adjust, revise, or update pre-existing biblical material in order to make a given scripture passage understandable to ensuing generations [and that] those revisions . . . are also inspired and inerrant' (p. 582).

This is no different than the view most Latter-day Saints maintain for changes to the Book of Mormon. So if the Bible qualities as an "inerrant" book according to this premise, so could the Book of Mormon. Yet of course this is not at all how you defined the doctrine of inerrancy in your criticism of the Book of Mormon. Here is your quote:

"First, we can ask whether the Book of Mormon is inerrant. That is, we can ask if it is completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors."

So this statement presupposes that as an "inerrant" work, the Bible is "completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors." Do you honestly believe that the Bible can truly live up to this claim? If not, why should the Book of Mormon?

I got a little bit lost in this thread. Did Rob ever respond to these questions?

Thanks.

[Bill Hamblin]

I got a little bit lost in this thread. Did Rob ever respond to these questions?

Thanks.

No. Alas, there's lots of questions he has avoided.

PS Pulled Pork! Aaaaaahhhhhh!

[ElfLord]

If you are familiar with OT and NT themes, I find it interesting that you see these two as even inconsistent one to another.

Even the passage that says Law and the Prophets until John- notes that "...it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void."

The other says that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law.

"Until John..."-- does not say that the law was abolished until John-- rather suggests a change in emphasis or role of the law at that time.

To understand these passages fully one should consult the scripture in its fulness-- not in the vacuum of isolation.

What you said makes absolutely no sense?!

I never said it says "the law was abolished until John". It says the the law "WAS until John" after that the Law ends. To read it any other way tortures the simple definition of the word "until" beyond recognition.

And the second part... "...it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void." Says nothing about the state of the Law after the "until John".

It is true that some day the heaven and Earth will both pass away, but this verse says nothing about the law lasting "until" that time as the Matthew verse predicts.

[David Bokovoy]

No. Alas, there's lots of questions he has avoided.

PS Pulled Pork! Aaaaaahhhhhh!

Pulled Pork and ribs with my spicy home-made Apple BBQ sauce served with made from scratch smokey mac-n-cheese, but you didn't confirm the date!

[Bill Hamblin]

Pulled Pork and ribs with my spicy home-made Apple BBQ sauce served with made from scratch smokey mac-n-cheese, but you didn't confirm the date!

Alas, I can't type while I'm engaged in anticipatory drooling.

[Vance]

OK. So which one is inerrant?

I see at least 4 possible answers.

1) Neither.

2) Luke.

3) Matt.

4) Both. Followed by a very contorted, tortuous and illogical explaination of how blatant contridictions between the two doesn't require the abandoment of the doctrine of inerrancy or something.

Now, of course, both 2) and 3) imply 1) under the current (soon to be changed?) definition of inerrancy.

And so, I wait with abated breath for Rob's answer to this question.

[maklelan]

Pulled Pork and ribs with my spicy home-made Apple BBQ sauce served with made from scratch smokey mac-n-cheese, but you didn't confirm the date!

I hate you both.