Biblical Infallibility

[mnn727]

Getting back to the original question of what Christians mean when they say the BIble is inerrant or infallible:

The problems is, that similiar to the term 'the Trinity', different people define 'inerrant' and 'infallible' differently when applying the terms to the Bible.

If you talk to 10 different members of various Christian denominations you'll get at least 11 different definations of either of those terms.

Thats why when someone comes on here and claims 'xyz' means 'this' in mainstream Christianty I have to chuckle. If all Christians defined things the same way, there would not be all sorts of different denominations.

Edited September 26, 2011 by mnn727

[ERayR]

Steve,

You wrote:

You're right. The Articles of Faith were drafted in response to a request for a summary of LDS doctrine for public consumption, and so for the most part they are worded to sound very similar to conventional evangelical beliefs. However, LDS doctrine understands these articles very differently than evangelicals would in their theological context. With respect to the eighth Article, LDS doctrine maintains that the Bible's text has been so corrupted in the process of transmission that its original meaning can be known only by modern revelation. Evangelicals roundly reject this claim. For us, the qualification that the Bible is without error insofar as it is correctly translated is a minor qualification calling for care in textual criticism and the study of the original language text; for Mormons, it is a major qualification calling for trusting the Bible only insofar as it is validated or corrected by modern scriptures and modern prophets.

There you go again telling us what we really mean and believe. For once why don't you listen to what we believe so you have a chance of getting it right.

Edited September 26, 2011 by ERayR

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

I am listening to you; more to the point, I am listening to your leaders. Please take a look at the quotes I presented in post #24 above and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.

There you go again telling us what we really mean and believe. For once why don't you listen to what we believe so you have a chance of getting it right.

[Vance]

I am listening to you; more to the point, I am listening to your leaders. Please take a look at the quotes I presented in post #24 above and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.

And yet you still get it wrong.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Vance

[Zakuska]

I found this quite enlightening on the 1st 7 verses of the Gosepl of John and Innerrancy and variants.

http://www.yhwh.com/...s/inerrancy.htm

Edited September 26, 2011 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

ERayR,

I am listening to you; more to the point, I am listening to your leaders. Please take a look at the quotes I presented in post #24 above and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.

No you are not you arereading some remarks by LDS and interpreting them through a Protastant and evangelical paradigm. You have been advised of this yet you continue. You are either incapable of learning or it is a willful misrepresentation.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

Hi there. You wrote:

No knowledgeable inerrantist would ever make such a claim. Biblical inerrancy applies to the original-language texts insofar as they correctly represent the originals, and to translations insofar as they correctly represent the meaning of those texts. For example, inerrantists agree that additions to the text of the Bible, such as the long ending of Mark (16:9-20), are not inerrant.

Hi Rob,

Hope things are well your way. Thanks for the note.

I have seen innerrantists actually make this claim, though I am doubtful they are people you would term as "knowledgeable", in general you hear this sort of thing from the laypeople of the church. There are quite a lot of them that hold such a position IMO and they hold it with justifiable, if not good, reasoning. That being, that the ministry has transmitted to them the message that the Bible is God's word, innerant and so forth. While at the same time the ministry has not made serious attempts in transmitting any issues in regards to Biblical criticisms, what exactly they mean by innerant, why the differences in some translations vs others are more than semantic and so forth.

There is also the KJV only crowd that seem to push this notion, in a bad direction, as well.

Not trying to be abrasive here, but hopefully you will agree with me that there are Christians who do seem to think this sort of thing.

That being said, I do understand what you are saying.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Mudcat]

In temple worship they do.

This would be inconsistent with what Paul was talking about I think. Why do LDS women not do this in their Sabbath meetings? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but don't both men and women do this in the Temple? LDS don't have much to appeal to in Corinthians on the matter.

But see thats my point Mudcat. Mormons arn't the ones claiming the Bible is all Authoritative on Christian practice. Bible innerrantists are and they are the ones not following it.

Wait a minute, are you suggesting that Paul's letter to the Corinthians was mistranslated. If so, then could you explain how?

Or are you claiming that even though it is translated correctly you don't have to follow it. Is there some over riding statement from the CoJCoLDS that dispenses with what Paul said?

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I doubt the claim was made by someone professing to hold to "biblical inerrancy.&quot.

Yes, it was.

[Calm]

thesometimesaint:

Ah, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether one can know what the BOM said or means. If the lack of absolute uniformity in the extant manuscript copies of the Bible raises any doubts about what the Bible said or meant, then the absolute lack of any extant manuscripts for the BOM is an even bigger problem.

That the text we have corresponds at all to what was on the plates in JS's possession has always been a matter of faith. Has any LDS you know claimed otherwise?

[Calm]

The Articles of Faith were drafted in response to a request for a summary of LDS doctrine for public consumption, and so for the most part they are worded to sound very similar to conventional evangelical beliefs.

Is this your opinion or do you have something to back up this claim?

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Thank you, Mudcat, now I don't feel the need to search old threads for an example and since I have to get ready for a family get together in about an hour or so, that is a good thing.

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but don't both men and women do this in the Temple??

If you define a hat as a covering, then yes.

No need to appeal to a mistranslation to justify the lack of this practice in all of our meetings, LDS doctrine allows for revelation to change past practices, I believe that Zak's point is that inerrantists do not have a similar mechanism in place. (Don't know if he's right or not.)

Edited September 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

How do you know the Bible is true?

[altersteve]

Rob:

How do you know the Bible is true?

I don't think an evangelical Christian has ever given me a straight answer to that question.

[thesometimesaint]

altersteve:

Let's hope Rob does.

[Zakuska]

If you define a hat as a covering, then yes.

No need to appeal to a mistranslation to justify the lack of this practice in all of our meetings, LDS doctrine allows for revelation to change past practices, I believe that Zak's point is that inerrantists do not have a similar mechanism in place. (Don't know if he's right or not.)

Bingo Cal.

[Damien the Leper]

This area of study has many faces. There is Literary Criticism, Redaction Criticism, Textual Criticism, etc. These all play a part in whether or not the Bible is inerrant. They each deal with specific issues concerning scripture. The most popular seems to be Textual Criticism thanks to Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Bruce Metzger.

[KevinG]

Rob:

How do you know the Bible is true?

I suspect the answer will sound something like this...

[Tarski]

Rob:

How do you know the Bible is true?

This is a good question but let me say for the record, the idea that one can bridge this epistemic gap by pointing to an inner feeling or welling up of conviction is absurd.

(hey you lazy types, read my whole post! LOL)

|

|

|

\/

To put it bluntly, the idea of determining the answer to that question by asking God in prayer and then waiting for something to take place inside oneself rather than seeking public and rationally analyzable evidence seems absurd. It just doesn't fit with any reasonable idea of what it means to know something. It conflates conviction with knowledge.

The amazing thing is not when someone gets a burning of the bosom or some other spiritual feeling after asking in faith. The amazing thing is that it doesn't happen more often. The power of suggestion is working both on the likelihood of feeling something unusual but also the power of suggestion is working on the question of attribution of feeling. You are told not only that you will feel something but are told that it should be identified as the Holy Ghost. It is even suggested that if you don't feel it, then you lacked something (faith maybe) and should keep trying. How could that fail to work with certain types of people? (Don't tell me it isn't a feeling--I am ready for you on that one!)

I once asked my mother how many times I should try and she said "until you receive a testimony". Man, if a religion could get people to adopt that attitude, it could not fail to grow. Luckily people do give up eventually. Unfortunately, a certain percentage will have succumbed to a psychological effect and then it will be supplanted by social factors as they continue to attend church.

In short, asking God if something is true is a bad idea no matter how pious and lovely it sounds. It isn't real knowledge unless it is supported by rational thought and publicly available evidence proportional to the claim in question. Nothing else is knowledge it seems to me. (But it feels like knowledge! I just know! ....Umm, ya)

Now some will say, oh we LDS believe it must be more than a feeling and that the evidence is in the testing of principles in one's life. Well, two points to that:

1) Missionaries still baptize those who have this sudden inner event (The Holy Ghost) as if this were a good reason to join a church and start paying in money and time.

2) Most of the principles being tested should be expected to work for many people whether the church is true or not and whether the BoM is historical or not.

One can apply principles found in some fantasy fiction and they may pay off. So what?

To draw the needed conclusion, there must be no simpler explanation for the principles bearing fruit than that the whole supernatural enchilada is factual.

But of course there is a simpler explanation!

So, suppose, I take my family to church and hold family home evenings. I am honest with my fellow man and I avoid smoking and porn. I don't drink and I teach my kids honesty and send them to church. Now I notice I am doing pretty good and feeling pretty fine. Do I now have warrant for believing that Nephi existed or that God has a physical body?

Far from it. Very far. Many other churches or systems of honest living could have done as well.

So we are back to spiritual feelings and that won't bake the epistemic cake as it were.

What we do have is an implausible story with lots of holes. But the church works so well for some socially and psychologically, they keep with it even after they can't believe the supernatural aspects of the founding events. Thus the rise of the New Order Mormon phenom.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Tarski

[diglot]

In short, asking God if something is true is a bad idea no matter how pious and lovely it sounds. It isn't real knowledge unless it is supported by rational thought and publicly available evidence proportional to the claim in question. Nothing else is knowledge it seems to me.

Enjoyed your post. I particularly resonated with the above quoted portion and it is actually something I have bought up with my Mormon missionaries before.

[diglot]

It seems to me a lot of conservatives are forced to move the goalposts of inerrancy to align them with infallibility. In other words, they only assert inerrancy for doctrinally significant matters. Point out to someone asserting inerrancy that 1 Sam 13:1 says Saul was a year old when he began to rule and all kings of qualifications begin to be appended onto inerrancy.

Indeed.

While I used to firmly hold to inerrancy (as well as infallibility and inspiration) back in my more conservative days, nowadays I find the whole idea of inerrancy to be useless, untenable, and in some cases, perhaps idolatrous. I think inerrancy is a root cause of the Bibliolatry that is rampant in mainstream Christianity these days.

On another note, while a form of inerrancy can be traced back to some of the early Church fathers, inerrancy as it exists now has become so very nuanced and precisely defined (see, for example, the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy). To me, that is only indicative that there is something inherently wrong with inerrancy and that it needs to be dropped.

[Zakuska]

In short, asking God if something is true is a bad idea no matter how pious and lovely it sounds. It isn't real knowledge unless it is supported by rational thought and publicly available evidence proportional to the claim in question. Nothing else is knowledge it seems to me. (But it feels like knowledge! I just know! ....Umm, ya)

Enjoyed your post. I particularly resonated with the above quoted portion and it is actually something I have bought up with my Mormon missionaries before.

Actually it's a worse Idea not to ask God if something is true... Look what happened to Joshua when he failed to ask God if what someone had told him was true.

Joshua 9

8 And they said unto Joshua, We are thy servants. And Joshua said unto them, Who are ye? and from whence come ye?

9 And they said unto him, From a very far country thy servants are come because of the name of the Lord thy God: for we have heard the fame of him, and all that he did in Egypt,

10 And all that he did to the two kings of the Amorites, that were beyond Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, which was at Ashtaroth.

11 Wherefore our elders and all the inhabitants of our country spake to us, saying, Take victuals with you for the journey, and go to meet them, and say unto them, We are your servants: therefore now make ye a league with us.

12 This our bread we took hot for our provision out of our houses on the day we came forth to go unto you; but now, behold, it is dry, and it is mouldy:

13 And these bottles of wine, which we filled, were new; and, behold, they be rent: and these our garments and our shoes are become old by reason of the very long journey.

14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.

15 And Joshua made peace with them, and made a league with them, to let them live: and the princes of the congregation sware unto them.

16 ¶And it came to pass at the end of three days after they had made a league with them, that they heard that they were their neighbours, and that they dwelt among them.

17 And the children of Israel journeyed, and came unto their cities on the third day. Now their cities were Gibeon, and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim.

18 And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the princes.

19 But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: now therefore we may not touch them.

20 This we will do to them; we will even let them live, lest wrath be upon us, because of the oath which we sware unto them.

21 And the princes said unto them, Let them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water unto all the congregation; as the princes had promised them.

22 ¶And Joshua called for them, and he spake unto them, saying, Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying, We are very far from you; when ye dwell among us?

23 Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.

He got tricked into an oath that he couldn't break, and had to spare their lives. Later Esau marries a cannanite descedent of own of the Hivites who Joshua failed to kill and Israels history is all down hill from there.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

On another note, while a form of inerrancy can be traced back to some of the early Church fathers, inerrancy as it exists now has become so very nuanced and precisely defined (see, for example, the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy). To me, that is only indicative that there is something inherently wrong with inerrancy and that it needs to be dropped.

If it is something that can't actually be applied as a standard in any real case but only theoretical, it seems to lack in value to me.

[Rob Bowman]

diglot,

You wrote:

While I used to firmly hold to inerrancy (as well as infallibility and inspiration) back in my more conservative days, nowadays I find the whole idea of inerrancy to be useless, untenable, and in some cases, perhaps idolatrous. I think inerrancy is a root cause of the Bibliolatry that is rampant in mainstream Christianity these days.

Of all of the many canards about evangelicalism, this claim that the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy is "Bibliolatry," which is repeated ad nauseum and functions in many circles as an automatic sign of sophistication, is one of the dumbest. There is no such thing as Bibliolatry. I have ministered in many different evangelical denominations all over the United States and in two other countries during the past thirty years, and I have never seen it.

You wrote:

On another note, while a form of inerrancy can be traced back to some of the early Church fathers, inerrancy as it exists now has become so very nuanced and precisely defined (see, for example, the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy). To me, that is only indicative that there is something inherently wrong with inerrancy and that it needs to be dropped.

Well, perhaps you prefer your theology sloppy, haphazard, Jello-to-the-wall, by the seat of one's pants, but I see nothing meritorious or virtuous about doing theology that way. Creeds and confessions originate in the Bible (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:4-6 and 15:3-5, two passages that are the historic core of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds) but necessarily become more nuanced and precise in definition in response to heretics who claim to agree with the church's confession but redefine what the language means ("Sure Jesus is Lord, but that just means he is our Master"). If you don't like detailed and nuanced statements of faith, try to discourage heretics from redefining the terms of the simpler statements.