Biblical Infallibility

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

I had written:

"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."

You replied:

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

Yes, I do. Why is it that every statement I make, even if it is a prosaically factual statement that you and others here could easily verify for yourselves, gets challenged? Did you try looking up any information on the matter before issuing your challenge?

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on the "Wentworth Letter":

John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat, wrote Joseph Smith in 1842 to request information about the Church for a friend who was writing a history of New Hampshire. The "Wentworth Letter" was written by the Prophet Joseph Smith in response to this inquiry.

The letter contains a brief History of the Church to 1842, including the key events in the restoration of the gospel. It states that the purpose of the Church is to take the gospel to every nation and prepare a people for the Millennium. The letter also describes concisely the origin, contents, and translation of the Book of Mormon. It concludes with thirteen doctrinal statements that have since become known as the Articles of Faith and are published in the Pearl of Great Price (HC 4:535-41).

The contents of this letter were published March 1, 1842, in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons. There is no evidence that Wentworth or his friend, George Barstow, ever published it. In response to other inquiries in 1844, Joseph Smith sent revised copies of this letter to several publishers of works about various churches and religious groups. It has been published several times over the years (for the complete text of the letter, see Appendix item "Wentworth Letter" in Vol. 4).

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint:

You asked:

How do you know the Bible is true?

How many words do I get?

[KevinG]

calmoriah,

I had written:

"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."

You replied:

Yes, I do. Why is it that every statement I make, even if it is a prosaically factual statement that you and others here could easily verify for yourselves, gets challenged? Did you try looking up any information on the matter before issuing your challenge?

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on the "Wentworth Letter":

I suspect it was this part of your statement "...for public consumption, and so for the most part they are worded to sound very similar to conventional evangelical beliefs." that he was asking for a reference about.

[diglot]

diglot,

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.

Well maybe you haven't seen it but I certainly have. It is most apparent amongst King James Onlysists, but I think it is rampant amongst inerrantists to a lesser degree.

I would say that one symptom of a bibliolatrist is that they decry you as a heretic, and condemn you to h***, for not believing in inerrancy. This is effectively putting the inerrancy of the Bible on par with believing in Christ, which is idolatry in my book.

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.

I don't see how what you say follows from what I said regarding inerrancy. Are you saying that by rejecting inerrancy, one must then prefer sloppy and jello-to-the-wall theology? Because if you are then I would definitely disagree. Rejecting inerrancy does not mean that one is left with a sloppy jello type theology.

Your example of 1 Cor 8.4-6 being a "historic core" of the Nicene Creed seems to assume that the Nicene Creed accurately and faithfully expounds upon what Paul meant in 1 Cor 8.4-6 and elsewhere. The Nicene Creed could be a faithfully more nuanced version of what Paul taught and believed, but one can interpret what Paul meant in differing ways that conflict with the Nicene Creed. Personally, I can not just assume that the orthodox Church tradition hit the nail on the head with the Nicene Creed. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. Personally, I am somewhat agnostic on the creeds.

[KevinG]

13 Articles of Faith

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

So... which of these things was worded to sound very similar to conventional evangelical beliefs as opposed to LDS teachings on these subjects not prepared for pubic consumption. (In fact what are LDS teachings on subjects not prepared for public consumption outside the sacred Temple rites?)

Edited September 27, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

diglot,

You wrote:

Well maybe you haven't seen it but I certainly have. It is most apparent amongst King James Onlysists, but I think it is rampant amongst inerrantists to a lesser degree.

I wouldn't even make this accusation against the KJO crowd, even though I find their views as offensive as they are absurd. But there is no basis for finding it among evangelical inerrantists.

I would say that one symptom of a bibliolatrist is that they decry you as a heretic, and condemn you to h***, for not believing in inerrancy. This is effectively putting the inerrancy of the Bible on par with believing in Christ, which is idolatry in my book.

Have you ever had an evangelical--not a KJO advocate--condemn you to H-E-L-L merely for not believing in inerrancy? If you say so. I can think of several ways of characterizing such an extreme position, but idolatry would not be one of them.

I don't see how what you say follows from what I said regarding inerrancy. Are you saying that by rejecting inerrancy, one must then prefer sloppy and jello-to-the-wall theology?

Good grief. No. I was responding to your assertion that the precision of such statements as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy suggests there is something wrong with inerrancy and it should be jettisoned.

Your example of 1 Cor 8.4-6 being a "historic core" of the Nicene Creed seems to assume that the Nicene Creed accurately and faithfully expounds upon what Paul meant in 1 Cor 8.4-6 and elsewhere.

No assuming here, simply stating that what later creedal statements were doing was expanding on those core statements in order to clarify and define more precisely what those who produced the statements understood the NT to teach.

The Nicene Creed could be a faithfully more nuanced version of what Paul taught and believed, but one can interpret what Paul meant in differing ways that conflict with the Nicene Creed. Personally, I can not just assume that the orthodox Church tradition hit the nail on the head with the Nicene Creed. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. Personally, I am somewhat agnostic on the creeds.

Well, as Emile De Becque puts it in South Pacific, "I know what you are against; what are you for?"

[diglot]

Have you ever had an evangelical--not a KJO advocate--condemn you to H-E-L-L merely for not believing in inerrancy? If you say so.

Yes, many times. Admittedly, though, most inerrantists are not like that (thankfully).

Good grief. No. I was responding to your assertion that the precision of such statements as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy suggests there is something wrong with inerrancy and it should be jettisoned.

Sorry. Seems I misunderstood what you were saying.

No assuming here, simply stating that what later creedal statements were doing was expanding on those core statements in order to clarify and define more precisely what those who produced the statements understood the NT to teach.

I disagree that expanding on those core statements of the NT necessarily leads one to Nicaea. There are other ways to interpret things that Paul said that do not lead one to Nicaea. You might say, of course, that one is then interpreting Paul erroneously. But how do you know?

Well, as Emile De Becque puts it in South Pacific, "I know what you are against; what are you for?"

I am for accepting the Bible as a patchwork of texts written by many different authors and redactors over many centuries in different cultures. Imposing inerrancy upon this collection of texts is unwarranted IMO. I simply do not see the logic for doing so.

[Zakuska]

Yes, many times. Admittedly, though, most inerrantists are not like that (thankfully).

I've met quit a few Biblidolitrists in my time too.

One was so convinced that I was Satan incarnate that every time I opened up my mouth to quote a verse from the Bible to counter what he was saying he literally stuck his fingers in his ears and cried na-na-na I can't hear you Satan. And then continued on his diatribe of out of context verses to stop me up supposedly. Must have been one of these.

Bibliolatry and Southern Baptists

Southern Baptists in particular have in recent years been accused of practicing bibliolatry by numerous and well-respected evangelical leaders due to a wording change in the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message and the corollary purging of the ranks that removed any professors who believed that historical or archaeological findings might legitimately raise questions about a passage. During the late 1990s, hundreds of Southern Baptist seminarians and denominational officials were systematically removed from office, not for believing a false gospel or questioning the Bible's accuracy, but for either admitting that cultural and archaeological findings helped us understand the context of the Scriptures better or (after the 2000 revision) for refusing to agree to the significant revision in the Baptist doctrine. One example of the vitriol this debate has produced is Southern Baptist William Merrell's response to the charge of bibliolatry in 2000.[7]

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Bibliolatry

Edited September 27, 2011 by Zakuska

[Anakin7]

From my LDS JEDI TEMPLE ARCHIVE - "Are Pauls Writings Faultless ? "http://www.jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/paul.htm

Edited September 27, 2011 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

For some reason my link is not working however if you type in "Are Pauls Writtings Faultless" in a Search the article will come up.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Calm]

calmoriah,

I had written:

"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."

You replied:

Yes, I do. Why is it that every statement I make, even if it is a prosaically factual statement that you and others here could easily verify for yourselves, gets challenged? Did you try looking up any information on the matter before issuing your challenge?

I am not challenging it, it was the first time I've heard of this and wanted more information.

I did not want to waste my time on researching something that didn't exist...my time was precious earlier...if it was just your opinion.

Why do you assume a question is always a challenge?

[Mudcat]

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

I don't know what is worn in any specific manner. I was trying to do a bit of research on the matter and ran across a statement from a LDS on the net. From askgramps.org

Dear Gramps,

I believe in the head covering for women as the Amish and Mennonite practice. What does the Mormon Church say about this issue?

Caroline, from Northfield, New Jersey

Dear Caroline,

We would commend any practice of showing reverence to the Lord in sacred places of worship. As you know, it was the practice in New Testament times for women to have their heads covered in places of worship. It was also forbidden them to speak in such places. The Mormon Church believes that these particular practices were customs of the times, and were not intrinsic to proper worship procedures. However, as an act of reverence, both men and women keep their heads covered in the holy temples of the Mormon Church. These temples are the very most sacred places of worship in the Mormon Church. In addition, patrons to the temples dress in white clothing, representing purity, and when it is necessary to converse, they speak in quiet reverential tones.

Gramps

I like Gramps prose and (bold mine) thus my information on men and women on the notion of head coverings.

**As a side note, I think if a person wants to read what LDS think vs. what other people think about what LDS think, they do better by putting "LDS" in their search rather than "Mormon" for some reason.

All that aside, yes I do think a hat would most definitely count as a head covering. Though it's not even worth a thread, I would speculate that the past practice of men removing hats when a lady walked in the room or while attending a religious ceremony.. church, weddings, funerals and the like.. had its roots in Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

Pity that hats have worked their way out of our culture for the most part. I for one would like to wear a Fedora around without being thought a bit odd.

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.)

Thanks Cal, but it's a legitimate point. The scripture is there in 1st Corinthians and I'll wait on Zak to bring forth the LDS revelation that refutes the need for such head coverings for women in LDS services.

As to appealing to mechanisms to quantify change in this or that within the Church, I can only offer two mechanisms. Either such are natural/adversarial influences that we inadvertently dilute into practice or they are of the Holy Spirit.

Something that comes to mind is a discussion I had with a coworker. He is a "Oneness" Pentecostal. He is an engaging fellow that knows his beliefs well and doesn't mind getting challenged on his views, so naturally we get on well, in a disagreeable sort of way. We were having a bit of a debate on the notion of women in ministry. Of course Paul speaks against the notion and I took his position on the matter. I thought I had my friend well cornered in the matter.

The discussion was about over and I was getting prepared to chalk a mental notch on the board, when he offered the following.. and I will try to quote verbatim. "But how can we reject who God has called?"

Edited September 27, 2011 by Mudcat

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

No inerrantist asserts inerrancy only "for doctrinally significant matters."

You should spend more time on CARM (that comment was rhetoric. No one should spend any time on CARM, much less more time). Anyway, I've been told dozens and dozens of times there over the years that error or contradiction X, Y, or Z are immaterial when it comes to inerrancy because they're not theologically significant.

As for qualifications to inerrancy, the most basic of such qualifications, one that has been stated explicitly at least as far back as Augustine, is that copyist errors are not inerrant. Thoughtful inerrantists do not use this qualification as "cover" for every textual difficulty, but one area where copyist error was especially likely was with numbers, and this is a reasonable explanation for 1 Samuel 13:1. It is in fact unreasonable to suppose that the original author or authors of the text intended to say that Saul began ruling when he was one year old!

But with just about any textual difficulty the assumption of inerrancy will take priority. This is one of my main problems with it. It is not a conclusion at which someone can ever arrive. It is always and only an assumption which someone makes based on dogmas. It can be nothing else, and the assumption will always have to overlook evidence, and in some cases will always favor demonstrably derivative texts over demonstrably original texts. Which is the inerrant text, the short form of Jeremiah or the long form? The shorter form is demonstrably earlier, but which one is found in every modern Bible? Which is inerrant, the Hebrew version of Amos 9:11-12 or the mistranslated version asserted by James to be scripture in Acts 15? Which is inerrant, the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Deut 32:8-9, 43 or the MT versions? What about the Septuagint versions? They were good enough for Jesus and Paul. When did they stop being inerrant so that the MT could take over? Which version of Sennacherib's invasion is inerrant? Which patriarchal genealogy is inerrant? Which account of the flood is inerrant? Which account of creation is inerrant? Which account of Saul's introduction to David is inerrant? Which text is right about who killed Goliath? The evidence point unilaterally away from any notion of inerrancy. The only thing that points toward it is the assumption that the texts are inerrant. With that assumption in hand, one just needs to find creative ways to muddy the waters.

[Zakuska]

The only thing that points toward it is the assumption that the texts are inerrant. With that assumption in hand, one just needs to find creative ways to muddy the waters.

You're too generous Mak.

The best defense they have when anyone brings such things up is to claim you are attacking the Bible, then recoil in fear and sweap the whole conversation under the rug hoping no one will notice.

[TAO]

Mudcat, you could respond by saying that women are called to be mothers, and that God doesn't want to distract them from their (main) calling most of the time. So simply state, yes, women have callings... but they are different then that of men. And much more glorious than that of men, as well.

Or at least that's how I'd respond XD.

Best Wishes,

-TAO

Edited September 27, 2011 by TAO

[3DOP]

deleted.

Edited September 27, 2011 by 3DOP

[Zakuska]

I am an inerrantist because I have faith God can do this.

With God's help there is nothing to prevent mere inerrancy. Inerrancy isn't that big of a deal. It doesn't mean beautiful. It doesn't mean grammatically correct. It doesn't mean concise. It doesn't mean well articulated. It doesn't even mean that it is clear. It means that God doesn't lie or make mistakes.

Gen 6

5 ¶And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Ooops...

It does mean that we need to believe that God can communicate to us in human language. There are enough problems with communication. I mentioned a few of the problems that accompany Scripture even if it was inerrant in the original. There are also copyists mistakes. There are translation difficulties too. Not only that, we are prone to misunderstand that which is not mistaken. If on top of every other problem, you are proposing that God can't even manage to reach a mere threshhold of not making an error in the original autograph, it wouldn't matter much to me as regards the practical interpretation and use of Scripture. That isn't what is so troubling.

Not to add insult to injury but we have this to contend with too...

Gen 11

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

You should spend more time on CARM (that comment was rhetoric. No one should spend any time on CARM, much less more time). Anyway, I've been told dozens and dozens of times there over the years that error or contradiction X, Y, or Z are immaterial when it comes to inerrancy because they're not theologically significant.

I'd love to see an example of this. I suspect something has been garbled in transmission (pun intended). For example, evangelicals often maintain that while there are errors in specific manuscripts of the Bible and in some cases it may be difficult to know which reading is correct, none of these uncertain variants affects major theological issues. That claim (which itself might need some nuancing) is quite different from claiming that the Bible is inerrant only in major theological matters.

You wrote:

But with just about any textual difficulty the assumption of inerrancy will take priority. This is one of my main problems with it. It is not a conclusion at which someone can ever arrive. It is always and only an assumption which someone makes based on dogmas. It can be nothing else, and the assumption will always have to overlook evidence, and in some cases will always favor demonstrably derivative texts over demonstrably original texts.

To say that inerrancy is nothing but an assumption based on dogmas is misleading, as if evangelicals just pulled a dogma of biblical inerrancy out of thin air so as to make evangelicalism harder to believe. There is a history of reflection on the nature of Scripture that one can trace throughout church history (as I have pointed out to you, inerrancy is not a modern evangelical innovation) and that begins with what the NT reports that Jesus and his apostles taught about the nature of Scripture.

You then launched into a barrage of questions about which of various disparate texts or translations of texts are "the inerrant text" followed by questions about various parallel accounts in which statements can be found that are difficult (you may even say impossible) to harmonize. I cannot go through all of these and sort them out for you to your satisfaction. In some cases, I think reasonable harmonizations have been proposed (e.g., I don't agree that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory creation accounts). In other cases, your arguments focus on texts where there simply is not enough information to provide a simple or obvious solution; the texts pertain to events of millennia ago, the information we have is fragmentary or focused on issues other than the ones that interest you, etc. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that the inerrantist has all of the answers and can neatly resolve all difficulties. You can call this dogmatism, but from an evangelical perspective we have good reasons to support an inerrantist view of the Bible. As an analogy, scientists study nature from the working assumption that nature is coherent, consistent, and law-like, expecting that data will consistently line up in some fashion; yet there are always anomalous data points, always unanswered questions, always situations in which the evidence is insufficient to resolve apparent difficulties, etc. Does this make the scientist a backwards, intellectually irresponsible dogmatist? No, of course not. Nor does it mean that the evidence can never puncture their theories; sufficient evidence marshaled in the right way can make a compelling case against certain interpretations of the natural world, and likewise I am open to sufficient evidence marshaled in the right way making a compelling case against biblical inerrancy. Thus, I am not defending the idea that biblical inerrancy is nonfalsifiable. What I am saying is that the standard of eliminating all problems or difficulties before accepting a conclusion is an impossibly high threshold in any field.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I am not challenging it, it was the first time I've heard of this and wanted more information. I did not want to waste my time on researching something that didn't exist...my time was precious earlier...if it was just your opinion. Why do you assume a question is always a challenge?

I don't assume that a question is always a challenge. I took your question as a challenge because of its tone:

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

Notice that you did not ask, "Could you provide some documentation on this point?" or something similarly non-confrontational. Especially in the context of past experience, I took the way you framed your question as confrontational or challenging.

[3DOP]

Gen 6

5 ¶And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Ooops...

Not to add insult to injury but we have this to contend with too...

Gen 11

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Deleted.

Edited September 27, 2011 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Especially in the context of past experience, I took the way you framed your question as confrontational or challenging.

It wasn't but it is easy to mistake tone or intent in small amounts of writing, so no big deal.

PS: I do not assume that you take every question as a challenge, that comment was apparently a too subtle poke at this comment of yours...

Why is it that every statement I make, even if it is a prosaically factual statement that you and others here could easily verify for yourselves, gets challenged?

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[maklelan]

maklelan,

You wrote:

I'd love to see an example of this. I suspect something has been garbled in transmission (pun intended). For example, evangelicals often maintain that while there are errors in specific manuscripts of the Bible and in some cases it may be difficult to know which reading is correct, none of these uncertain variants affects major theological issues. That claim (which itself might need some nuancing) is quite different from claiming that the Bible is inerrant only in major theological matters.

I'm not really in the mood to go hunting down all that stuff, but I emphatically disagree with your nuanced explanation. There are numerous variants that are uncertain (or are certain contra your position) that affect major theological matters. For instance, in the Pentateuch it can be demonstrated that the word "angel" has been interpolated in several places where God's physical interaction with humanity was originally represented. When the notion developed that God was too glorious to interact with humans, that quickly became taboo, and the "angel of Yahweh" developed as the go-to textual revision. This cleared the way for the later idea to develop that God could not be seen, which later facilitated the belief that he didn't have a form. The New Testament's angelology and doctrine of God's visibility are directly derivative.

You wrote:

To say that inerrancy is nothing but an assumption based on dogmas is misleading, as if evangelicals just pulled a dogma of biblical inerrancy out of thin air so as to make evangelicalism harder to believe. There is a history of reflection on the nature of Scripture that one can trace throughout church history (as I have pointed out to you, inerrancy is not a modern evangelical innovation) and that begins with what the NT reports that Jesus and his apostles taught about the nature of Scripture.

It's still an assumption. Jesus and his apostles didn't teach anything about the scriptural nature of the text that would become the New Testament. That is assumed. They didn't teach anything about scripture having no errors. That is assumed. There can be no systematic analysis of the texts that can at all be objective that arrives at inerrancy as a logical conclusion. The fact that it's a tradition handed down through the millennia doesn't change that. The reflection behind that tradition in antiquity is even more dogmatic than it is today.

You then launched into a barrage of questions about which of various disparate texts or translations of texts are "the inerrant text" followed by questions about various parallel accounts in which statements can be found that are difficult (you may even say impossible) to harmonize.

Well, some of them were meant to point out that inerrantists prefer the demonstrably manipulated texts to the supposed inerrant texts--Jeremiah, for instance. We know for a fact that before the Common Era Jeremiah was around 1/8 shorter in length. When will inerrantists change their Bibles to conform to the closest approximation to the autographs? If the autographs are the only guaranteed vehicles of inerrancy, why do inerrantists reject the earliest text in favor of a later demonstrably manipulated one?

I cannot go through all of these and sort them out for you to your satisfaction. In some cases, I think reasonable harmonizations have been proposed (e.g., I don't agree that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory creation accounts).

They are absolutely contradictory, and there can be no argument to the contrary that does not presuppose their univocality. If you believe you can show that their harmony is a logical conclusion at which a person who does not presuppose it could be expected to arrive then I would love to see your argument.

In other cases, your arguments focus on texts where there simply is not enough information to provide a simple or obvious solution; the texts pertain to events of millennia ago, the information we have is fragmentary or focused on issues other than the ones that interest you, etc.

Which texts, specifically, fall into this category? What of the ones that remain?

Biblical inerrancy does not mean that the inerrantist has all of the answers and can neatly resolve all difficulties.

Then it's something one must presuppose. If difficulties remain with no adequate answers then one cannot conclude inerrancy, one must assume it.

You can call this dogmatism, but from an evangelical perspective we have good reasons to support an inerrantist view of the Bible.

And I believe every single one of those reasons is a dogmatic one.

As an analogy, scientists study nature from the working assumption that nature is coherent, consistent, and law-like, expecting that data will consistently line up in some fashion; yet there are always anomalous data points, always unanswered questions, always situations in which the evidence is insufficient to resolve apparent difficulties, etc.

I don't find this analogy particularly helpful, and here's why:

1) Science has no other option. The notion that the universe is incoherent, inconsistent, and not governed by laws is no grounds for any kind of system. With understanding the Bible, however, there are more options than just the assumption of inerrancy.

2) There have never been any data that have conflicted with the notion that the universe is a coherent and consistent system. There have only been data that have conflicted with particular theories about specific mechanisms within that system, and the vast, vast majority of those data have been resolved only to give us a more accurate view of exactly how ordered the universe is.

3) There is overwhelming empirical evidence that indicates the universe is coherent, consistent, and law-like. The data points to the contrary are aberrations, are rare, and where solutions are found, they absolutely always lead to more accurate perspectives on the coherence and consistency of the universe. I don't know of any data points that remain unexplained and that actually conflict with the assumption that the universe is an ordered place. Perhaps you can point to one. On the other side, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that indicates the Bible is inerrant in any way.

Does this make the scientist a backwards, intellectually irresponsible dogmatist? No, of course not. Nor does it mean that the evidence can never puncture their theories; sufficient evidence marshaled in the right way can make a compelling case against certain interpretations of the natural world, and likewise I am open to sufficient evidence marshaled in the right way making a compelling case against biblical inerrancy.

I don't believe you are. You've already explained that you're willing to assume inerrancy while evidence to the contrary is put on the shelf as "difficulties" that don't have answers yet. In my discussions regarding Acts 15, Sennacherib's invasions, etc., you've not shown me any willingness to at all acknowledge evidence against inerrancy, even when you've stated that you don't have answers.

Thus, I am not defending the idea that biblical inerrancy is nonfalsifiable. What I am saying is that the standard of eliminating all problems or difficulties before accepting a conclusion is an impossibly high threshold in any field.

Except for the notion of inerrancy, which needs no evidence and has none. At the same time, I'm not asking you to eliminate all problems, I'm asking you to engage evidence that flatly precludes the notion of inerrancy. If I show you a video of Lee Harvey Oswald pulling a rifle in from a window of a Dallas book depository just seconds after Kennedy was shot you can't really say he didn't do it because your theory can't be expected to eliminate all problems or difficulties. You have to be able to engage the evidence if you insist on the conclusion. Additionally, you have to have evidence of some kind to start with before you can start saying your theory can't eliminate every last conflicting piece of data. If all the evidence points unambiguously away from your conclusion and absolutely none of it points toward it you can't say that my evidentiary standard is just an impossibly high one that wouldn't be demanded of any other field.

Rob, there just is no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is inerrant. None. You cannot point to a single empirical observation about a biblical text that would lead an objective observer to conclude that, yes, the Bible is without error. I can point to dozens and dozens of empirical observations that constantly lead objective observers to conclude that, no, the Bible is not without error.