Biblical Errancy And Evangelical Contradictions

[Glenn101]

When I read that the bible mention gods I think back to an episode of Gilligan's Island, a t.v. show made in the 70's. And in it Gilligan runs into natives on the island, well actually they were head hunters. I recall them worsipping many gods like the Sun god, etc. So gods but in the lower case "g",

Gilligan's Island has now been canonized???? <grin>

Glenn

[MormonMason]

When I read that the bible mention gods I think back to an episode of Gilligan's Island, a t.v. show made in the 70's. And in it Gilligan runs into natives on the island, well actually they were head hunters. I recall them worsipping many gods like the Sun god, etc. So gods but in the lower case "g",

There is no distinction in the case sizes of letters in Hebrew. Capitalization is an 'Englishism' in translations from Hebrew, and a matter of interpretation of the translator. The Earliest manuscripts and inscriptions were all written in what we refer to as majuscule. There was no distinction in case sizes there, either.

[Vookman]

Again, "plain and precious things" I believe is believed by even "informed Mormons" and it DEFINITELY differs from the opinion of "the vast majority of EV scholars"

I know that I have read at least twice where Margaret Barker has used the term to specifically describe the changes inflicted upon the text of the Bible. According to the "Dead Sea Scrolls Bible", in Isaiah alone there are nearly 1500 significant variants (not just spelling or word order, but word additions or changes). In Isaiah 53, for example, they note 28 significant variants. Nine are the addition of the word "and". But such things as (vs 9) "he" made his grave among they wicked is changed to "then they made his grave among the wicked"; (vs 12) he bore the "sin" of many is changed to "sins" of many; "11 He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:" becomes "Out of the suffering of his soul he will see light, and find satisfaction"; and (vs 12) he made intercession for their "transgressors" (KJV) is changed to "transgressions".

This is one chapter. You don't find these "plain and precious"? I am not calling your baby ugly, I am just saying it has green eyes. I can't help it if you don't like green eyes, or you are color blind and can't see green. To not embrace the whole text of the Bible is to reject the truth of the Bible.

I bring out the fact that there are two or three variants for every word of the NT because it does impact interpretation. The scribes started using shorthand for many words which led to further variations. The woman caught in adultery story isn't even found in any of the early texts of the Bible, and when it is, they can't seem decide which chapter of John it belongs in, or if it might not actually belong in Luke. 1 John 5:7-8 is absolutely fraudulent, and the original reading actually supports the LDS view of the Godhead, while providing no support to the Trinitarian perspective. Metzger lists 340 "C" and 5 "D" class variants in his Textual Commentary on the Greek NT, the sister publication to UBS' Greek New Testament. That means there are at least 345 locations in the NT where the correct text is not currently knowable. The end of Mark is a massive variant unto itself, with multiple possible texts.

So the idea of "plain and precious" things being taken from the text, deliberately and otherwise, is not an assault on the Bible. Accepting the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly", where translation also means transmission, is demonstrably reasonable among the vast majority of scholars, including EV scholars.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Vookman

[Vance]

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Also, Genesis 35:7 is another theologically "suppressed" translation. The place where the Gods appeared to Jacob. NET Bible's comments brings this point out nicely, even as they also provide a theologically driven translation.

Thanks,

Nothing like a little theological bias driving the translation.

[Vance]

Since Elohim is used something around 2500 times in the OT, the question is what does one base their doctrine on?

The same thing Paul did, Revelation.

The vast majority of uses where Elohim is clearly singular, since it's coupled with a singular verb, adjective as the context would indicate?

Is there a question in there?

Or the few cases that you have brought up here?

?????

You have laid down a charge that the scribes altered the text for theological reasons. What evidence do you have for such a charge?

Clearly translators have done that, so why would you think that scribes would not?

Do you have written documentation of an eye-witness that claims to witness these alterations?

Right, because the guilty parties would always document their nefarious deeds?

[MormonMason]

Nothing like a little theological bias driving the translation.

This is one of the ones to which I alluded earlier. Many translators just do not mention that they do stuff like that. I know of only one translation where the translators were quite honest and up front with the fact that they altered things based on theology. That is the original preface to The Living Bible.

That preface flat out stated that wherever they run into difficulty in a text they use as the basis for the translation "a rigid, Evangelical theology."

And, this passage does not address a pagan audience. I just thought I would throw that in for fun.

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

Hi there. You wrote:

This past Sunday I attended a presentation by Norman Geisler centered on Biblical interpretation. During the course of the presentation, he mentioned, without elaboration, that the Bible is inerrant and trustworthy.

While I believe in most things it is trustworthy, I would like to point out that even Geisler's public statements and affirmation of the inerrancy of the Bible are similar to those found in the LDS Articles of Faith, #8....

You go on to compare Articles of Faith 8 with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, of which Geisler was a signatory.

There is a verbal similarity between the two statements but the similarity is superficial only. Two substantive differences need to be recognized here.

First, Chicago and other evangelical statements affirm the inerrancy of the original documents (the "autographs"). By contrast, LDS theology does not affirm the inerrancy of any scriptural text, original document or otherwise (see, e.g., Robert L. Millet, "Inerrancy," in LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference, ed. Millet et. al., 320-22, and the references cited there).

Second, the qualifications that evangelicals make about the transmission and translations of the biblical writings are understood very differently than similarly-worded qualifications that Mormons make in such statements as Articles of Faith 8. For evangelicals, these qualifications mean that where textual criticism, historical-grammatical exegesis, or both show that we need to revise or refine our understanding of the original wording of the biblical text or of how it should be translated into the vernacular, it is that revised text or refined translation that should be treated as God's word and viewed as inerrant. Absent any such text-critical or exegetical evidence pertaining to the wording or meaning of the text, evangelicals hold that the text as received should be presumed by believers to be inerrant. By contrast, Mormons generally (and here there is admittedly some variety of viewpoints that can be cited) hold that the biblical texts were corrupted in ways that cannot be identified let alone corrected by textual criticism or exegetical study, but can be known only by divine revelation (mediated through modern prophets, especially Joseph Smith). So, for example, Joseph Smith added whole pages of text to Genesis that can only plausibly be understood (and are so understood traditionally by most Mormons) as supposed restorations of original text that was somehow lost or removed from the Bible.

You wrote:

The reality is that finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, various codices of the NT and related textual criticism make the claims to inerrancy of the Bible in people's hands today untenable.

Such a statement reveals that you did not understand Geisler or the Chicago Statement.

You wrote:

And yet we still have unreflective statements by critics claiming the LDS view denigrates the Bible.

I have reflected on the matter considerably, and I make and stand by that claim as long as it is qualified to refer to the usual, customary, or common LDS view (since of course individual Mormons are free to color outside the lines). You wrote:

I am perfectly willing to concede that some early statements about the reliability of the Bible by LDS members were (and sometimes even today) exaggerate the unreliability of the Bible to emphasize the superior method of transmission and receipt of the Book of Mormon.

This is an instance of the rhetorical sleight-of-hand that Mormon apologists perhaps unconsciously use to diminish the significance of statements made past and present concerning issues that divide Mormons and orthodox Christians. The key rhetorical expression here is "LDS members." The issue is not what minor "LDS members" might have said or occasionally say today, but what its prophets and apostles have said and what is in its scriptures and correlated curriculum manuals. Here are some notable examples:

“Wherefore, thou seest that after the book [i.e., the Bible] hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God” (1 Nephi 13:28).

“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 206).

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture…. The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph to restore truths to the Bible that had been lost or changed since the original words were written. These inspired corrections are called the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible” (Gospel Principles [2009], 45, 46).

“Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation” (Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, Nov. 1986, quoted in Book of Mormon Teacher Resource Manual [2004], 20).

You wrote:

But when you have the New Testament, which has more errors and variants than it has actual words, I can understand where those statments come from.

There's an example of a misleading statement, evidently drawn from Bart Ehrman, who is famous for making this claim, that is commonly used to denigrate the reliability of the Bible. That's certainly Ehrman's intent when he makes this statement.

You concluded:

But most informed Mormons think no less of the Bible's inerrancy than the vast majority of EV scholars do themselves.

Again, to the best of my knowledge most informed Mormons flatly deny that inerrancy is a proper description of any scripture. And I have explained why the usual Mormon view is quite different from the usual evangelical view.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[volgadon]

Finding it hard to reconcile this,

"First, Chicago and other evangelical statements affirm the inerrancy of the original documents (the "autographs"). By contrast, LDS theology does not affirm the inerrancy of any scriptural text, original document or otherwise (see, e.g., Robert L. Millet, "Inerrancy," in LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference, ed. Millet et. al., 320-22, and the references cited there)."

with this,

"“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 206)."

[Vance]

Finding it hard to reconcile this,

"First, Chicago and other evangelical statements affirm the inerrancy of the original documents (the "autographs"). By contrast, LDS theology does not affirm the inerrancy of any scriptural text, original document or otherwise (see, e.g., Robert L. Millet, "Inerrancy," in LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference, ed. Millet et. al., 320-22, and the references cited there)."

with this,

"“I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 206)."

I think the problem is with the meaning of the word "inerrancy".

Inerrancy:

Exemption from error. The quality of never making an error.

I think JS was referring to the principles being taught being correct, not that the text was free from error. Scripture by virtue of being produced by humans using human language, can not be guaranteed to be free from error even while teaching correct principles.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

One of the problems with declaring something inerrant (as pointed out by Dr. Peterson, as I recall) is that it takes an inerrant decision to make such a declaration. In other words, only God could legitimately make such a declaration, and He has not done so.

Therefore (among other things), Bible inerrancy is a false doctrine.

[zerinus]

I think the problem is with the meaning of the word "inerrancy".

Inerrancy:

Exemption from error. The quality of never making an error.

I think JS was referring to the principles being taught being correct, not that the text was free from error. Scripture by virtue of being produced by humans using human language, can not be guaranteed to be free from error even while teaching correct principles.

In my book, "teaching correct principles" and "free from error" mean the same thing. What other kinds of errors did you have in mind?

[zerinus]

One of the problems with declaring something inerrant (as pointed out by Dr. Peterson, as I recall) is that it takes an inerrant decision to make such a declaration. In other words, only God could legitimately make such a declaration, and He has not done so.

To me He has.

Therefore (among other things), Bible inerrancy is a false doctrine.

I suppose it all depends on how you want to define inerrancy. You can define it arbitrarily to mean what you want it to mean, without reference to the context in which it is discussed, or define it in context. If defined in context, then the perceived problems disappear.

[thesometimesaint]

in·er·ran·cy

noun \(ˌ)i-ˈner-ən(t)-sē\

Definition of INERRANCY

: exemption from error : infallibility <the question of biblical inerrancy>

[zerinus]

in·er·ran·cy

noun \(ˌ)i-ˈner-ən(t)-sē\

Definition of INERRANCY

: exemption from error : infallibility <the question of biblical inerrancy>

In the context of the discussion, I read that to mean free from error in doctrine, not from spelling mistakes.

[Tacenda]

In the context of the discussion, I read that to mean free from error in doctrine, not from spelling mistakes.

I reside with this idea. Free from error in doctrine not from spelling mistakes. I'm thankful the old testament doctrine was done away with when Jesus became the sacrifice and all the legalism went with Him. So grateful for that. So I think the bible is inerrant too!

[zerinus]

I reside with this idea. Free from error in doctrine not from spelling mistakes. I'm thankful the old testament doctrine was done away with when Jesus became the sacrifice and all the legalism went with Him. So grateful for that. So I think the bible is inerrant too!

Old Testament doctrine was never done away with.

[Vance]

In my book, "teaching correct principles" and "free from error" mean the same thing. What other kinds of errors did you have in mind?

Spelling, scientific facts, punctuation, grammar, historical events/facts, quote attribution, directions, etc.

[Vance]

To me He has.

You mean with statements like this?

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

I suppose it all depends on how you want to define inerrancy. You can define it arbitrarily to mean what you want it to mean, without reference to the context in which it is discussed, or define it in context. If defined in context, then the perceived problems disappear.

I define it just the way the dictionary defines it.

No special pleading here.

[Freedom]

Except for KJVists (my term for those who say that only the KJV is the Word of God), I don't think anyone (who has put much thought into it at all) claims that the Bible in their hands (not the original texts) is "inerrant" in the way you are speaking of it.

Let's be honest here, the 8th Article of Faith is not the only ubiquitous statement by LDS that "denigrates" the Bible. The statement that "many plain and precious things" were lost/taken from the Bible obviously denigrates the Bible.

How is acknowledging that the current rendering of the bible has problems considered denigrating the bible? I think the better question is, why do some christians feel that the bible must be perfect? I think this position is required for any group who reject revelation, but it is not justified by the text.

[zerinus]

Spelling, scientific facts, punctuation, grammar, historical events/facts, quote attribution, directions, etc.

That is not what the Chicago statement means by inerrant, nor what I mean; so I am not sure whom it is you are disagreeing with---me, the Chicago statement, or some straw man.

[zerinus]

You mean with statements like this?

No, I mean statements like this:

the will of the Lord, . . . the mind of the Lord, . . . the word of the Lord, . . . the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation

I define it just the way the dictionary defines it.

No special pleading here.

I prefer to define it the way my interlocutor defines it so we can be intelligible to each other.

Edited October 1, 2012 by zerinus

[urroner]

I find it interesting that in several Evangelical Bible study sessions I have been in since living here in the South, I have heard all the EVers and other Protestants stand in unison when they say that the Bible is infallible when it comes to doctrine, but the problem I saw was the differing doctrines these people stated was the truth. Some claimed that salvation was absolutely free, that there was nothing anybody could do in any way to affect their salvation, yet, I heard somebody in the same meeting state that this was a false doctrine, that works were important to salvation, that we were saved by both grace and works. I've heard the importance of baptism argued both ways. I've heard that if one didn't accept Christ in this life, that one was damned to eternal Hell, yet, I've heard those who opposed this call this utter poppycock since how could new born babies accept Christ, so if that doctrine was true, newborn infants who died were damned to Hell. I've heard people proclaim that free enterprise was doctrine in the Bible, yet, I've also heard that socialism was the doctrine in the Bible.

Personally, I don't think that it doesn't matter if the Bible is infallible from doctrinal error if we don't know how to correctly interpret the Bible and the doctrine within it.

I've also heard that the Bible interprets itself. From those Bible studies, I think that if the Bible interprets itself, it's doing so in a language that those in the study didn't understand.

I heard, "Oh, if you would just let go of your biases and read the Bible with an open mind, you would see that you are wrong and I am right." So, now it me with the biases and the other person is without any biases.

I have shown these people where the different versions of the Bible contradict each other, but this was simply brushed over by them telling me that there is no contradiction, it's just our biases getting in our way, If we could just read without any biases and let the Lord lead us, we would see there is not contradiction. :rolleyes:

And I find it amusing when these same people tell me that Mormonism is a vast witch's cauldron full of a dark morass brew of confusion and man-made doctrines being stirred by the Devil himself, that if I would just let go and listen to the truth, I would find salvation. Well, which version of the truth should I listen to? Do I have to do something for salvation or not?

Besides, weren't there plenty of ECFs that stated rather point blankly that the scriptures had been changed, particularly the parts where they were changed so as to agree with what the Jews of that time believed was scripture, so the two different groups could discuss scriptures. I had several examples, but I can't find them right now. I do remember that it was one of the first ECFs (Justin Martyr?) that had a discussion about this with a Jew and another (Irenaeus?) talked about how Jeremiah had been changed by deleting verses which talked about the Lord dying on a tree. It's been too long and I'm too tired to take the time to look it up.

Edited October 2, 2012 by urroner

[MiserereNobis]

And I find it amusing when these same people tell me that Mormonism is a vast witch's cauldron full of a dark morass brew of confusion and man-made doctrines being stirred by the Devil himself, that if I would just let go and listen to the truth. Well, which version of the truth should I listen to?

The one given authoritatively by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, of course!

I have to say that the Protestant rejection of the Catholic Church and simultaneous rejection of the LDS notion of apostasy seems quite contradictory. But then again, I've never really addressed the issue with a Protestant so I'm sure they have some way of arguing that the Catholic Church got it all wrong except for the Bible.

A Mormon once told me that from his point-of-view it was either the Catholic Church or the LDS church (I pointed out that the Orthodox would fit into his analysis, too). Either we've got the authority or you do or there is no authority now. Sola Scriptura just doesn't cut it (especially since it is itself not Biblical, interpretative s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s notwithstanding).

[urroner]

I prefer to define it the way my interlocutor defines it so we can be intelligible to each other.

So, who is the interlocutor in this case? It is nice to have a solid set of definitions of words and phrases that is agreed upon when going into a discussion.

[urroner]

The one given authoritatively by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, of course!

I have to say that the Protestant rejection of the Catholic Church and simultaneous rejection of the LDS notion of apostasy seems quite contradictory. But then again, I've never really addressed the issue with a Protestant so I'm sure they have some way of arguing that the Catholic Church got it all wrong except for the Bible.

A Mormon once told me that from his point-of-view it was either the Catholic Church or the LDS church (I pointed out that the Orthodox would fit into his analysis, too). Either we've got the authority or you do or there is no authority now. Sola Scriptura just doesn't cut it (especially since it is itself not Biblical, interpretative s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s notwithstanding).

There you go again, saying that the Protestants are in a untenable situation when they state that there was no Apostasy. I have always found that rather amusing. So, what does that mean about the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox religions, that one of them is right, since there was no apostasy?

Nah, it was the invisible church that Protestantism came forth from and it's the invisible church that God protected while the those others went down wrong paths. Huh? What am I missing here? Well, other than the truth and the ability to understand it.