On Inerrancy

[Bill Hamblin]

I hate you both.

That will make the food taste all the better!

[selek]

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.

Pity they can't extend us the same courtesy....

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.

That's okay, Mak.

I got smoked turkey, barbecue beef, smoked sausage, german potato salad, fresh baked bread rolls, cornbread, and three-inch-thick peach cobbler going at my place.

C'mon over!

[WalkerW]

Edit: For whatever reason, only a portion of what I wrote posted the first time. I've reposted the full one.

This whole discussion reminds me of an email exchange I had with a group member in one of my business classes over the summer. We had a friendly face-to-face discussion about biblical accuracy and continued via email. After a few times back and forth, he accused me of "knit picking" [sic] and stated that "Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the scriptures regularly" (as if that somehow proves scriptural inerrancy or infallibility). This was my response (with a nod to Dan at the end):

And? Paul and others reinterpreted and reapplied Old Testament scriptures to fit the new Christological view. For example, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes Ps. 45:6 and applies it to Christ: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Heb. 1: But the original Psalm was obviously not about Jesus. It was addressed to the anointed Davidic king:

"[T]he rituals which transform the status of the earthly king, removing him from "merely human" status to that of a sacral figure, to be couched in the form of a narrative about a god, carries with it the hint that the king himself is to be seen as transformed into a god...The enthronement of the king is thus his apotheosis." (Nicolas Wyatt, "Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship," 'There's Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King': Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.: 2005)

The king was seen as divine, the son of Yahweh. This is why you have the people prostrated "before Yahweh and the king" in 1 Ch. 29:20 (notice the king sits on the throne of Yahweh in vs. 23). James Davila of the University of St. Andrews has pointed out that Melchizedek was the prototype of Davidic royalty and was originally understood to be a priest, king, and god (or deified king). This, however, was suppressed by the Deuteronomist reformers. Hence, we only have two mentions of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible, yet he is a key parallel figure to Jesus in the epistle to the Hebrews. During Christ's timeframe, Melchizedek was viewed as a god or divine mediator in some circles i.e. Fragment 11Q13 (see Davila, "Melchizedek: Priest, King, and God," The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response?, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer, SUNY Press: 1997). Ps. 45:6 describes the Israelite king, who is anointed or a messiah (Heb "anointed one"), a Davidic descendent, a son of God (see Ps. 2:7), and originally a high priest (see Ps. 110:4). All these apply to the Messiah who is Jesus. So, we see a reworking of Old Testament scriptures to fit the revelation of Christ's resurrection (even resurrection had cultic significance. See J. Wijngaards, "Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. VI 2)," Vetus Testamentum 17:2, April 1967).

I'm actually quite baffled that you say the texts are consistent, especially after I gave you some examples in our face-to-face chat of how they are not. Remember Deut. 32:8-9? The MT of vs. 8 reads "sons of Israel," the LXX reads "angels of God," and the Qumran reads "sons of God." Which is correct? The Qumran is the earliest Hebrew version we have and it uses the same exact terminology that we find in Ugaritic literature:

"The members of the assembly at Ugarit are unambiguously classified as 'ilm ("gods"), bn 'il ("sons of El"), and bn 'ilm ("sons of the gods"). Specifically, in the Keret Epic, the Canaanite chief deity El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses its members as either 'ilm ("gods") or bny ("my sons")." (Michael Heiser, "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God," Bibliotecha Sacra 157, January-March 2001)

In the earliest Hebrew version of Deut. 32:8-9, Yahweh is depicted as the God of Israel and a son of El Elyon (God Most High), not El Elyon himself. The LXX reworks the "sons of God" to mean "angels of God," thus demoting them from the status of deity. The further change to "sons of Israel" would be an attempt to completely move away from the concept of multiple deities (though the MT could have been a scribal error if the original reading was "sons of Bull El." See Jan Joosten, "A Note on the Text of Deuteronomy xxxii 8," Vetus Testamentum 57:4, 2007). Even Deut. 32:43 has similar problems:

MT: "O nations, rejoice His people. For He'll avenge the blood of His servants, and wreak vengeance on His foes, and will cleanse His people's land."

LXX: "O heavens, rejoice with Him. Bow to Him, all angels of God. O nations, rejoice with His people and let all angels of God strengthen themselves in Him. For He'll avenge the blood of His sons, be vengeful and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on His foes, requite those who reject Him, and the Lord will cleanse His people's land."

4QDeutq: "O heavens, rejoice with Him. Bow to him, all you gods. For He'll avenge the blood of His sons, and wreak vengeance on His foes, requite those who reject Him, and will cleanse His people's land."

These are big differences. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes from the LXX in Heb. 1:6. The Qumran version fits more with Ps. 97:7. Which is it? Israelites, angels, or gods? Did the early Israelites believe in other gods? Based on these texts, they believed in a multiplicity of gods, El being the Most High and his son Yahweh being the God of Israel. Yahweh was later conflated with El Elyon, which is evidenced from other texts as well. For example, Gen. 14:18 states that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God or El Elyon. In vs. 22, the LORD or Yahweh is identified as the Most High. It becomes Yahweh El Elyon. The addition of Yahweh's name is not found in the LXX, the Peshitta or the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon. Also, originally it was "El Elyon, begetter [Heb quoneh] of heaven and earth." Later, it became "Yahweh El Elyon, maker [Gk ktizo] of heaven and earth." The procreative and sexual aspects of God were suppressed here also.

And what about human interactions with God? Was God humanlike? Could He be seen? According to passages like Ex. 33:20 ("Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live") or John 1:18 ("No man hath seen God at any time"), no. But in Isaiah 6, not only does Isaiah see the Lord, he sees a very anthropomorphic Lord sitting on a throne. Ezekiel in his first chapter sees "the likeness of a throne" and "the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it" and all this was "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD." (vs. 26, 28) Jacob even embraced God (usually translated "wrestled." It is the only place in the Hebrew Bible that the word appears. The Aramaic means "to intertwine" or "to embrace.") and had his name changed to Israel. He named the place Peniel (meaning "Face of God") because "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30) The last part indicates a tradition that one did not expect to see God and live. Later targums such as Onqelos state that Jacob saw "an angel of the Lord face to face," changing the interpretation of the text. Even Ex. 33 contradicts itself, seeing that vs. 11 quite plainly says that Yahweh talked with Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (though God is still depicted to have human form: it implies that He has a face and His back parts are seen in vs. 23). Earlier in Ex. 24, it states that "they saw the God of Israel." (vs. 10) Targum Onqelos renders it "they perceived the Glory of the God of Israel." The LXX alters it slightly to read "they saw the place where stood there the God of Israel." In Ex. 17:6, the Lord says, "Behold, I will stand before you there." The LXX, however, changes it to, "Here I stood before you came." There are many, many more. My friend Daniel McClellan was recently awarded for the best dissertation in Oxford

[Hick Preacher]

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.

This opinion has been voiced as a view of a number of persons on this thread. But I disagree- there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke's doctrine concerning these things. This is evident when one examines other parallel teachings from Matthew, and Luke. In such an examination the Luke and Matthew passages are harmonized.

As far as methods go Matthew 5 is not the best lone passage to compare in juxta to Luke 16. Matthew 11 (below) provides information that harmonizes what some here perceive to be an inconsistency between Matthew 5 and Luke 16.

Matthew 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

17 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 16: 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Note-

Matthew 7: 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Obvious meaning of Matt 7: 12

( Do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you-- this is a summary or fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets--btw- this is how and why the Law is harder to pass away than the heavens and the Earth as mentioned by Jesus in Matt 5:17

the actual intent of the Law remains being interpreted by the rules that came into play after John- and with the gospel. )

Note:

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Note:

Acts 24: 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

[Hick Preacher]

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!

What kind of Inerrancy of the Bible are you referring? Are you thinking of some sort of hyper radical model of believing in a word for word exactness?

There are a number of models of inerrancy you know?

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Models_rev.html

http://www.gbcmpk.org/pdfs/Word_Appnd_1.pdf

[Rob Bowman]

Anakin,

You wrote:

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.

First, the individual you mentioned may have examined some of the manuscripts closely, but no human being has ever seen all of them, let alone examined all of them closely. We are talking about thousands of manuscripts located in numerous places all over the world. He certainly could not have counted the variants himself!

Second, the figure of 200,000 to 300,000 variants refers to the Greek NT manuscripts. The vast majority of these variants are spelling variants. Then, the vast majority of the remaining variants are irrelevant: these include variants that are so inconsequential they won't show up in translation or don't affect the meaning and variants that are so obviously a mistake that scholars simply ignore them (e.g., when one manuscript skips a line that all or almost all of the other manuscripts contains). This leaves a very small percentage of variants -- less than one per cent of that large number you mentioned -- that are of some consequence and are not obviously mistakes. And in almost all of those variants, the issues are not theologically earth-shaking.

Third, everyone agrees that there are variants in the biblical manuscripts. This isn't a problem for biblical inerrancy.

[ElfLord]

What kind of Inerrancy of the Bible are you referring? Are you thinking of some sort of hyper radical model of believing in a word for word exactness?

There are a number of models of inerrancy you know?

http://www.doxa.ws/B...Models_rev.html

http://www.gbcmpk.or...ord_Appnd_1.pdf

Chicago statement...

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole

Sounds pretty miniscule to me.

I'm sure that David B. Loughran would agree...

To begin with let no one forget the fact that EVERY WORD in the Holy Bible is vitally important. So important is this fact that the following warnings are given by the Almighty God concerning His Word.

Deut.4: 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. It is absolutely impossible for me to over emphasise the gravity of the above warning. Let all who read it - beware!

He would also disagree that variants don't effect doctrine...

6. NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES?

Some believers claim that, even allowing for the above changes, no doctrinal differences can be found in the NASV. Is this the case? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

The reader will have noticed that in the passages already quoted many basic Christian doctrines are affected. To name a few:

• Is Christ the Creator? Did he actually make all things?
• Is Jesus God? Should he be called Lord? Is He the Son of God? Is He God incarnate, God in human flesh? Or was Joseph His father?
• The Saviour's Title: Is Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the promised Anointed One?
• Was Jesus a liar, or was He sinless?
• Is Jesus the Alpha and Omega? Or is he deceiving Himself and us?
• The Resurrection: Did the Lord Jesus Christ actually come from heaven and did He return to heaven after His resurrection? Is he in heaven? Is there a Temple in Heaven?
• And lastly are the translators of the NASV confident that their work is indeed the Word of God? Or are those numerous footnotes evidence of their colossal doubt; evidence that they themselves do not believe that there is any such thing as the real WORD OF GOD in existence today!

It is poor reasoning to justify a missing doctrine in one text by claiming that it can be found in another part of the Scriptures. Who are we to decide or judge how often God specifies a doctrine? If He chooses to repeat anything, be it a command or a doctrine, let us beware of amending His work! There is absolutely no excuse for altering God's Holy Word. As Rev. Samuel C Gipp once said

'Cut just one vein and you could kill a man as surely as if you had blown him to pieces!'

If Satan had altered every text concerning a single doctrine his deception would have been soon discovered by even the casual Bible student. All he needed to deceive God's people was to alter a word or sentence here and another word or sentence there. That was all that was necessary; and that is what he has so successfully done with every modern translation which is based on corrupt manuscripts. He has deceived millions of sincere Christians and I was one of them!

http://www. jesus-is-...ion_exposed.htm

[Hick Preacher]

Chicago statement...

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole

Sounds pretty miniscule to me.

I have no argument with the general stipulations of your cited Chicago statement article. Also I see no obligation that I would be required to own or be devout to the Chicago statement. But please note that it is speaking of an original autograph-- not a transmission, not a copy, nor a translated copy.

It seems that many have posted here projecting the idea onto Evangelicals that they believe that an English KJV or NIV or American Standard version contains some kind of word for word exact match of an original Bible book autograph. This situation is of course not at all the case.

In the previous link above that I cited-- the similar ideas found in the Chicago statement of inerrancy are expressed alternatively.

--

5. Inerrancy does not require exact quotations of the OT in the NT. Though NT citations of OT scriptures

are not always exact, they do not change the meaning; they are often based on translations of the OT

that were available to NT writers; and they are inspired by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the OT

writers.

6. Inerrancy does not demand that the exact words of Jesus be contained in the Bible. Jesus spoke in

Aramaic, the NT was written in Greek. Therefore the original manuscripts were translations in the first

place.

7. Inerrancy does not guarantee that every incident is completely recorded. The synoptic gospels give

different takes on the same events, and not every aspect of everything recorded in the Bible is

exhaustive.

8. Inerrancy does not guarantee the accuracy of sources cited by biblical authors. Inerrancy only

guarantees that the writers are accurately cited. The sources may have been in error.

[ELF1024]

I guess it's Inerrant except for the Gospel of Mark... which Mr. Bowman has thrown under the bus...

URL

I see no point in continuing the discussion of the exegesis of Mark 16:16. We have both stated our views. Regarding my statement that most NT scholars do not view Mark 16:9-20 as part of the original Gospel of Mark, you wrote:

"That verse 8 marks the ending to the Gospel in its present form is scarcely debated" (William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT [Eerdmans, 1974], 591).

The situation has not changed since Lane's day. The only scholars who defend the Long Ending are "King James Only" advocates and those who take a "Majority Text" approach to NT textual criticism. The KJV-only position is totally absurd and no one in academia takes it seriously. The Majority Text view is advocated only by a small number of (ironically) ultra-conservative evangelical scholars. Most evangelical scholars and virtually all non-evangelical scholars agree that the Long Ending is not authentic.

[volgadon]

5. Inerrancy does not require exact quotations of the OT in the NT. Though NT citations of OT scriptures

are not always exact, they do not change the meaning; they are often based on translations of the OT

that were available to NT writers; and they are inspired by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the OT

writers.

Yet they do often change the meaning, such as Matthew 2:13-15.

[ElfLord]

Yet they do often change the meaning, such as Matthew 2:13-15.

Heres a whole list of "changed meanings" in Matthews OT citations...

http://www.xenos.org...sue3/mtappa.htm

One example:

Matthew takes the MT approach of literally translating "son" rather than the LXX "His children".

Yes one can argue that "sons" vs "his Children" doesn't really change the meaning because sons are a subset of "His Children". However... it is ambiguous/confusing to what group of people are actually being refered to. I'm sure the women in the croud would find this quite disturbing.

[Hick Preacher]

Chicago statement...

Article VI

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole

Sounds pretty miniscule to me.

I'm sure that David B. Loughran would agree...

He would also disagree that variants don't effect doctrine...

http://www. jesus-is-...ion_exposed.htm

Are you talking about variations in reconstructed Greek facsimiles or the American Standard Version which contains paraphrases. Often Evangelical scholars object to certain English versions which are paraphrased passages using contemporary American English colloquialisms.

[ElfLord]

Are you talking about variations in reconstructed Greek facsimiles or the American Standard Version which contains paraphrases. Often Evangelical scholars object to certain English versions which are paraphrased passages using contemporary American English colloquialisms.

he's not complaining about "certian English versions"... he's going back to Greek Manuscripts.

Meanwhile you are invited, as in the first article, to compare any modern version with the following texts; because most of them are also influenced by the same corrupt manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) which underlie the NASV being examined here. You owe it to yourself and family to check out these verses because it is dangerous folly to persist in error once it has been brought to your attention.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

Ridiculous. Do you accept the following as part of the Gospel of Mark? It appears at the end of the Gospel in some manuscripts:

"And all that had been commanded them they promptly announced to those around Peter. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to them, and from the east as far as the west he sent out through them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen."

If you don't accept this text (it isn't in the KJV or the JST, by the way), are you "throwing the Gospel of Mark under the bus"?

I guess it's Inerrant except for the Gospel of Mark... which Mr. Bowman has thrown under the bus...

[ELF1024]

Elf,

Ridiculous. Do you accept the following as part of the Gospel of Mark? It appears at the end of the Gospel in some manuscripts:

"And all that had been commanded them they promptly announced to those around Peter. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to them, and from the east as far as the west he sent out through them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen."

If you don't accept this text (it isn't in the KJV or the JST, by the way), are you "throwing the Gospel of Mark under the bus"?

I'm not the one with the position of Inerrancy...

[Rob Bowman]

That's not an answer. Inerrancy does not mean accepting every textual variant in every manuscript. If you criticize inerrancy as if it means this, you are not genuinely engaging the issue.

I'm not the one with the position of Inerrancy...

[ELF1024]

That's not an answer. Inerrancy does not mean accepting every textual variant in every manuscript. If you criticize inerrancy as if it means this, you are not genuinely engaging the issue.

If was INERRANT there wouldn't be textual variants in every manuscript.

Oh that's right, I forgot... Inerrant doesn't actually mean Inerrant... it means whatever I don't agree with is somehow wrong and tainted and I'll throw it out, but whatever I agree with is the true word of Christ.

Silly me.

[Bill Hamblin]

That's not an answer.

Pot and Kettle alert!

There is a certain person here who has consistently failed to engage the arguments of his opponents.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

That's untrue. I have engaged your arguments and those of others here repeatedly. I understand that you don't accept my responses, but to say that I have consistently failed to engage your arguments is just plain false.

Pot and Kettle alert!

There is a certain person here who has consistently failed to engage the arguments of his opponents.

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

If was INERRANT there wouldn't be textual variants in every manuscript.

Oh that's right, I forgot... Inerrant doesn't actually mean Inerrant... it means whatever I don't agree with is somehow wrong and tainted and I'll throw it out, but whatever I agree with is the true word of Christ.

Silly me.

At least we agree on something.

[ELF1024]

At least we agree on something.

After all, if it was really inerrant, it would be totally unreasonable for God to actually inspire people to the same translation each and every time. I mean that would require... a GOD!

For that matter, why would God bother with having some idiot human try and figure out what to say. He could have just had it written on the placenta in English. Like a manual of Instructions. By pass all that idiot fallable human stuff altogether.

[Hick Preacher]

he's not complaining about "certian English versions"... he's going back to Greek Manuscripts.

OH your link--

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NASV/new_american_standard_version_exposed.htm

---was to a critique to the American Standard Version-

Aside from that can you see how scholars have found the variations, and make productive use of them in reproducing an increasingly accurate NT/OT facsimiles?

That is from your link to-- http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtappa.htm

[Anakin7]

Anakin,

You wrote:

First, the individual you mentioned may have examined some of the manuscripts closely, but no human being has ever seen all of them, let alone examined all of them closely. We are talking about thousands of manuscripts located in numerous places all over the world. He certainly could not have counted the variants himself!

Second, the figure of 200,000 to 300,000 variants refers to the Greek NT manuscripts. The vast majority of these variants are spelling variants. Then, the vast majority of the remaining variants are irrelevant: these include variants that are so inconsequential they won't show up in translation or don't affect the meaning and variants that are so obviously a mistake that scholars simply ignore them (e.g., when one manuscript skips a line that all or almost all of the other manuscripts contains). This leaves a very small percentage of variants -- less than one per cent of that large number you mentioned -- that are of some consequence and are not obviously mistakes. And in almost all of those variants, the issues are not theologically earth-shaking.

Third, everyone agrees that there are variants in the biblical manuscripts. This isn't a problem for biblical inerrancy.

Rob the individual I was speaking of was the Former Director Of The Anchient Biblical Manusript Center located in Claremont California. The Biblical manusripts from around the world have been and are been/being filmed/cataloged and preserved on microfish and put into a special air controlled vault. Individuals from the Anchient Biblical Manuscript Center and others at the School there travel around the world digitaly copying the manuscripts. So contrary to your statement he has examined them. He has in the past told myself and LDS missionaries I took to the center for his presentation to us that the percentage of 99.9% of all the manusripts agreeing is incorrect, the figure is close to 85%. By the way there are not 5,000 + complete manuscripts, they are pieces

ranging in size. Unfortunatly all the Biblibcal Manuscripts/Pieces we have do not read the same and in some profound ways that has been documented I understand. If one adhers to Staunch Biblical Inerrancy theb ALL of the Anchient Biblical Manuscripts would read exactly the same, but they do not. However what we have is Awesome and should be thankful To GOD for what we have.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[ElfLord]

Hick,

This was intresting... from that link.

Matt 2:16,18Jer.31:15 2:17 fulfilled

Killing of childrenJer.31:15 - this is clearly a prophecy of the Babylonian captivity of Israel so in what sense does it get fulfilled in Christ

[Hick Preacher]

This whole discussion reminds me of an email exchange I had with a group member in one of my business classes over the summer. We had a friendly face-to-face discussion about biblical accuracy and continued via email. After a few times back and forth, he accused me of "knit picking" [sic] and stated that "Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the scriptures regularly" (as if that somehow proves scriptural inerrancy or infallibility). This was my response (with a nod to Dan at the end):

And? Paul and others reinterpreted and reapplied Old Testament scriptures to fit the new Christological view. For example, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes Ps. 45:6 and applies it to Christ: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Heb. 1: But the original Psalm was obviously not about Jesus. It was addressed to the anointed Davidic king:

"[T]he rituals which transform the status of the earthly king, removing him from "merely human" status to that of a sacral figure, to be couched in the form of a narrative about a god, carries with it the hint that the king himself is to be seen as transformed into a god...The enthronement of the king is thus his apotheosis." (Nicolas Wyatt, "Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical and Ritual Aspects of West Semitic Kingship," 'There's Such Divinity Doth Hedge a King': Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.: 2005)

The king was seen as divine, the son of Yahweh. This is why you have the people prostrated "before Yahweh and the king" in 1 Ch. 29:20 (notice the king sits on the throne of Yahweh in vs. 23). James Davila of the University of St. Andrews has pointed out that Melchizedek was the prototype of Davidic royalty and was originally understood to be a priest, king, and god (or deified king). This, however, was suppressed by the Deuteronomist reformers. Hence, we only have two mentions of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible, yet he is a key parallel figure to Jesus in the epistle to the Hebrews. During Christ's timeframe, Melchizedek was viewed as a god or divine mediator in some circles i.e. Fragment 11Q13 (see Davila, "Melchizedek: Priest, King, and God," The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response?, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer, SUNY Press: 1997). Ps. 45:6 describes the Israelite king, who is anointed or a messiah (Heb "anointed one"), a Davidic descendent, a son of God (see Ps. 2:7), and originally a high priest (see Ps. 110:4). All these apply to the Messiah who is Jesus. So, we see a reworking of Old Testament scriptures to fit the revelation of Christ's resurrection (even resurrection had cultic significance. See J. Wijngaards, "Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. VI 2)," Vetus Testamentum <EM>17:2, April 1967).

I'm actually quite baffled that you say the texts are consistent, especially after I gave you some examples in our face-to-face chat of how they are not. Remember Deut. 32:8-9? The MT of vs. 8 reads "sons of Israel," the LXX reads "angels of God," and the Qumran reads "sons of God." Which is correct? The Qumran is the earliest Hebrew version we have and it uses the same exact terminology that we find in Ugaritic literature:

"The members of the assembly at Ugarit are unambiguously classified as 'ilm ("gods"), bn 'il ("sons of El"), and bn 'ilm ("sons of the gods"). Specifically, in the Keret Epic, the Canaanite chief deity El sits at the head of the assembly and four times addresses its members as either 'ilm ("gods") or bny ("my sons")." (Michael Heiser, "

Walker this post of yours is an interesting with significant information. To a person who had a radical belief that the Bible contained preserved exact cross matched words from God(rhema)- instead of paraphrased messages (as logos) what you note above would be faith shattering.

To me this information signifies what is found in the overall Biblical theme. That is how Israel progressed godward in her theological thinking, and mission to be able to bring forth Messiah into the world, and thus to work out the redemption of mankind.