Biblical Errancy And Evangelical Contradictions

[zerinus]

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.

Since the Chicago statement is a Protestant declaration (more specifically perhaps Evangelical), in this case the interlocutor would be them. I suppose it could also include Catholics if they believed in the same thing.

[MiserereNobis]

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.

Please do explain why so we can have something to talk about

So, what does that mean about the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox religions, that one of them is right, since there was no apostasy?

Yes, exactly. And technically, the Orthodox Churches are still valid apostolic churches with valid authority. Their Sacraments are valid. They are not in heresy, but in schism.

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.

Is this what Protestants claim? I've wondered if they went for the belief that the invisible church could surive without the visible church (one declared heretical long before the protestants).

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

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.

This "problem" is unrelated to the issue of the infallibility of the Bible. The fact that believers in the Bible disagree as to how to understand the Bible's teachings on various issues is a reflection on the finitude and fallibility of those believers, not any problem with the Bible.

You wrote:

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.

Mormons claim to have the resources to overcome this problem, but they don't. They argue among themselves over all sorts of issues. In this very thread you have some Mormons affirming the inerrancy of the scriptures and others denying it. Some Mormons assert that we must do all we can and Jesus will make up the difference; other Mormons assert that regardless of our failures to do all we can Jesus does not merely "make up the difference" but rather Jesus "makes all the difference." Some Mormons understand the King Follett Discourse to be official doctrine; others deny that it is. Some understand it to teach that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God; others understand it to teach that he was a God who became a man. Having a larger collection of scriptures, modern prophets, and the priesthood apparently does not prevent these sorts of disagreements.

You wrote:

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.

You are referring here to Justin Martyr's claim in Dialogue with Trypho 1.73 that in Psalm 96 the Jews omitted the words "from the wood" following the words "the Lord has reigned." The irony here is that Justin was almost certainly wrong. The words “from the wood” (Greek, apo tou xulou) were almost certainly a Christian gloss to Psalm 95:10 LXX (corresponding to our 96:10), not words expunged by the Jews. Henry Barclay Swete noted, “No existing Greek MS. of the Psalter is known to contain the words except cod. 156 (see p. 160), which gives them in the suspicious form apo tō xulō. A ligno is found in the Sahidic and in the Latin of R and in some other O.L. [Old Latin] texts.” Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902), 424 n. 1; cf. additional note, 527. The form apo tō xulō is suspicious because it is ungrammatical (the preposition apo should be followed by the genitive tou xulou, not the dative tō xulō). Agreeing with Swete is Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 75 n. 2. The gloss appears to have originated before Justin, most likely as a deliberate Christian gloss, although accidental origins for the change have also been proposed. See Oskar Skausane, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, NovTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 38 n. 41; see 35-42 for a more extensive discussion of Justin’s use of Psalm 96, which Skarsaune argues was influenced by the parallel psalm in 1 Chronicles 16.

Nor should we accuse the early Christians of willfully tampering with the Old Testament text, as Swete explains in some detail:

The charge, though made in good faith, seems to have rested on no better foundation than a natural distrust of the Jews, who in Justin’s time were active and bitter opponents of the Church. It is equally improbable that the Greek O.T. was wilfully interpolated by Christians, or that, if they attempted this, the existing text has been affected by it to any appreciable extent. A few traces may be found of the accidental influence of N. T. citations, e.g. the interpolation in Ps. xiii.3, and perhaps also the reading sōma in Ps. xxxix.; but apart from these, the Septuagint, during the first two centuries after Christ, suffered little from Christian hands beyond errors of transcription. What Dr Hort has written in reference to the N.T. is doubtless true also of the LXX.: “accusations of wilful tampering with the text are . . . not unfrequent in Christian antiquity . . . but with a single exception, wherever they can be verified they prove to be groundless, being in fact hasty and unjust inferences from mere diversities of inherited text.

--Swete, Introduction, 479-80, citing Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek, 283.

The Christian gloss or interpolation of “from the wood” in Psalm 96:10 illustrates a basic principle of biblical textual criticism: scribes tended to add words deliberately far more often than to omit them deliberately. Generally speaking, scribes almost never deliberately omitted words from a text; omissions in biblical manuscripts are nearly always accidental omissions (e.g., accidentally skipping a line of text). Deliberate changes to biblical texts almost always took the form of glosses or additions, which the textual scholar can “weed out” by careful study of the existing manuscripts. This is one reason why the usual LDS claim that significant portions of the biblical writings were deliberately removed is not credible.

[MormonMason]

Alterations in Deuteronomy 32 were deliberate. I am glad that you used the words "almost always." But, that is a statement that is based upon what now is available, which still postdates the originals by centuries in most cases.

This is one reason why the usual LDS claim that significant portions of the biblical writings were deliberately removed is not credible.

We today have no copies of the New Testament, other than a mere scrap (and maybe one other scrap of Mark but this has not yet been confirmed), that predate the end of the second century. We have no copies of the Old Testament texts that date to within a century of the originals. There is plenty of room for books being removed since several books of the Old Testament quote from sacred books, and words and visions from God, that no longer exist.

A similar situation occurs with the New Testament as well. For example, certain letters mention other letters that no longer are extant. Scholarly studies of the Books of 1 and 2 Corinthians have offered evidence that what now are two books were originally only parts of an original four letters that have been whittled down and blended into two, with an interpolation thrown in for good measure. Other letters seem to offer internal textual evidence that the same has occurred with another letter such as Philippians, which is by some regarded to have originally been two letters blended into one.

And, I am glad that you brought up the point of deliberate additions. Nothing is more apparent that such as been done in Isaiah than the vocabulary and style of various of the chapters following 39 in our current Masoretic text. There are heavy interpolations in that text. While the overall structure of the book appears to indicate an original unity, the vocabulary, style and tone of the chapters following 39 are so different because of all the deep interpolations that scholars have come to believe that anything after 40 were written by somebody or somebodies else! The internal evidence of the sections of the text is for huge additions of text to an original. Given that most of these are strongly monotheistic and given that they contain post-Exile vocabulary, I'd say that that these texts were deliberate interpolations for theological reasons.

Consultation of the Septuagint as it compares with the Dead Sea Scrolls offers additional examples of losses, interpolations and expansions in our Masoretic text (as is especially the case with Jeremiah but also with other books), as well as losses of text and modified texts for theological, political, and other reasons, scattered throughout.

Edited October 2, 2012 by MormonMason

[urroner]

Mormons claim to have the resources to overcome this problem, but they don't. They argue among themselves over all sorts of issues. In this very thread you have some Mormons affirming the inerrancy of the scriptures and others denying it. Some Mormons assert that we must do all we can and Jesus will make up the difference; other Mormons assert that regardless of our failures to do all we can Jesus does not merely "make up the difference" but rather Jesus "makes all the difference." Some Mormons understand the King Follett Discourse to be official doctrine; others deny that it is. Some understand it to teach that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God; others understand it to teach that he was a God who became a man. Having a larger collection of scriptures, modern prophets, and the priesthood apparently does not prevent these sorts of disagreements.

Nice deflection there Rob. I didn't think you had it in you, but you did. I'm impressed.

I admit that there are doctrinal disagreements among the members of the CofJCofLDS, but then again, we're not the ones running around saying the scriptures interpret themselves or if we would just read them with an open or unbiased mind, we would understand them very easily. We aren't the ones saying that the scriptures are infallible, whatever that means, and that true Bibles (sounds like the "No True Scotsman" argument here) disagree with any other true Bible (Once again, the "No True Scotsman" argument).

Also, I have heard many "true" Christians say that there are no disagreements on major doctrinal issues among "true" Christians, yet, I have heard major doctrinal disagreements between people who said they were Christians and these people were strong members of an EV, Methodist, or some other Protestant denomination. They, the people in the Bible study sessions I attended, had major disagreements on "works vs grace," but then again, the "works vs. grace" doctrine might not be a major doctrine. Is this another "No True Scotsman" argument?

So Rob, three questions:

1. Does the Bible interpret itself or is this a false precept being taught by those in the Bible studies I attended?
   
2. Is it possible to understand the text written by those who wrote the books in the Bible if we don't understand the context that the text was written in?
   
3. Is the "works vs. grace" doctrine a major doctrine or is it a minor one that the Bible isn't very clear about?
   

Edited October 2, 2012 by urroner

[Rob Bowman]

MormonMason,

You wrote:

Alterations in Deuteronomy 32 were deliberate. I am glad that you used the words "almost always." But, that is a statement that is based upon what now is available, which still postdates the originals by centuries in most cases.

What is available is plenty. It is more than enough to establish what sorts of scribal practices were in use, what sorts of mistakes scribes made, and what sorts of deliberate changes to the text that scribes made. Your example of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which is one that some Mormons seem to find earth-shaking in its theological significance, demonstrates that even the most theologically interesting changes typically involved no more than a few words here or there.

You wrote:

We today have no copies of the New Testament, other than a mere scrap (and maybe one other scrap of Mark but this has not yet been confirmed), that predate the end of the second century. We have no copies of the Old Testament texts that date to within a century of the originals.

All correct, but some perspective is in order. The manuscript evidence we have for the books of the New Testament is far superior to that of any other ancient literature, and the manuscript evidence we have for the Old Testament is also significantly better than for other literature from the same period. Furthermore, textual criticism is able to use the manuscripts we have to plot lines of textual development back earlier than those earliest extant manuscripts. This is because as the scholars compare the wording of numerous passages in the manuscripts they discover that certain manuscripts, though not directly related (i.e., one is not copied from the other), are indirectly related (i.e., they have a common textual "ancestor"). This has allowed scholars to reach conclusions about the New Testament text during the second century even for books that have no extant copies from the second century. The evidence is sufficient to rule out the speculation that sometime during the second century the texts of the New Testament writings were substantially altered in unrecoverable ways.

Ironically, in the few places where scholars can prove that significant material was added to the New Testament, Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the KJV retains the secondary material. The only two such passages longer than about a sentence are Mark 16:9-20 (the long ending of Mark) and John 7:53-8:11 (the woman caught in adultery). Joseph missed a great opportunity to demonstrate his status as an inspired translator and revelator with regard to these and many shorter insertions in the New Testament (e.g., the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13).

You wrote:

There is plenty of room for books being removed since several books of the Old Testament quote from sacred books, and words and visions from God, that no longer exist.

This claim confuses the issue on at least two fronts. First, the question of whether certain books that used to be included in the collection of scriptural texts were at some point removed is a different question than the question of whether textual changes were made to the books that are in the collection. Second, there is no evidence that any of the books that the Old Testament cites and that are no longer extant were ever part of a collection of scriptural writings accepted by part or all of the people of Israel. Jews and Christians historically have not claimed that the Bible contains all of the prophecies and visions ever given to human beings in the history of the world or even in the history of Israel. It doesn't bother us one bit that there are writings of prophets cited in the Old Testament that we've never seen. There is no evidence that these books were in the Bible and then removed; they were never in the Bible and as best we can tell were never part of a collection of scriptures used by any religious community.

You wrote:

A similar situation occurs with the New Testament as well. For example, certain letters mention other letters that no longer are extant. Scholarly studies of the Books of 1 and 2 Corinthians have offered evidence that what now are two books were originally only parts of an original four letters that have been whittled down and blended into two, with an interpolation thrown in for good measure. Other letters seem to offer internal textual evidence that the same has occurred with another letter such as Philippians, which is by some regarded to have originally been two letters blended into one.

Here again you have mixed up different kinds of issues and gotten your scholarly facts wrong to boot. Scholarly studies of 1 and 2 Corinthians do not maintain that those two epistles were originally parts of four letters that were cut down and pasted together into two letters. 1 and 2 Corinthians each makes reference to another letter of Paul to the church at Corinth that is not part of the New Testament. The conventional scholarly understanding of the facts here is that Paul did write four letters to the church at Corinth, of which we only have two. The order appears to be as follows: a first epistle that is not extant (we'll call this Corinthians A); a second that we call 1 Corinthians; a third that is not extant (Corinthians C); and a fourth that we call 2 Corinthians. This is not an instance of texts being removed from the Bible. No one needs to engage in "scholarly studies" of 1 and 2 Corinthians to know that Paul wrote other letters to the church that are not extant; this is something 1 and 2 Corinthians explicitly mention and something that Christians have always recognized. For whatever reason, those other two letters did not circulate outside the church at Corinth and never became part of the collection of Paul's epistles. Now it is true that some scholars have speculated that a portion of Corinthians C has been attached to what we call 2 Corinthians (specifically, 2 Cor. 10-13), but there is no textual evidence to support this speculation. In any case, this is simply not an instance of something being removed from the Bible.

You wrote:

And, I am glad that you brought up the point of deliberate additions. Nothing is more apparent that such as been done in Isaiah than the vocabulary and style of various of the chapters following 39 in our current Masoretic text. There are heavy interpolations in that text. While the overall structure of the book appears to indicate an original unity, the vocabulary, style and tone of the chapters following 39 are so different because of all the deep interpolations that scholars have come to believe that anything after 40 were written by somebody or somebodies else! The internal evidence of the sections of the text is for huge additions of text to an original. Given that most of these are strongly monotheistic and given that they contain post-Exile vocabulary, I'd say that that these texts were deliberate interpolations for theological reasons.

Discussing the unity of Isaiah is probably more than we can do here. Admittedly most scholars do treat Isaiah 40-66 as a later text that was added to Isaiah 1-39, but for different reasons than you give (the central reason is that Isaiah 40-66 shows knowledge of Cyrus and more broadly of the Babylonian Exile and its aftermath). But notice that here the alleged problem is not the removal of text or a book from the Bible but the supposed addition of text to a book of the Bible. As a Latter-day Saint, do you really want to argue that Isaiah 40-66 should not be in the Bible? (Hint: see the Book of Mormon.)

[Rob Bowman]

urroner,

You wrote:

Nice deflection there Rob. I didn't think you had it in you, but you did. I'm impressed.

Your accusation of "deflection" is not credible, given that you ignored all but this one paragraph of my post. "Deflection" would mean that I avoided addressing your claims or arguments and instead sought to redirect attention away from what you said. But as anyone who actually bothers to look can see, that isn't true.

You wrote:

I admit that there are doctrinal disagreements among the members of the CofJCofLDS, but then again, we're not the ones running around saying the scriptures interpret themselves or if we would just read them with an open or unbiased mind, we would understand them very easily.

This is a caricature of what serious-minded evangelicals say. There may be theologically illiterate evangelicals who make such statements, but informed evangelicals don't. We freely acknowledge that some things in the Bible are hard to understand; after all, Peter said so even about Paul's writings (2 Peter 3:15-16). What we do say is that the Bible is clear enough on the major doctrinal issues that those who believe in the Bible as the sole written word of God and the final court of appeal come largely to agreement on the essentials of the Christian faith. Thus, evangelicals (who view the Bible in this way) agree on the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, creation ex nihilo, the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, the future literal second coming of Christ to earth, and the two eternal futures of eternal condemnation and punishment for the wicked and eternal life and glory for the redeemed. This doesn't mean we don't disagree on important issues, but the disagreements take place within a context of broad agreement on the essentials.

We aren't the ones saying that the scriptures are infallible, whatever that means, and that true Bibles (sounds like the "No True Scotsman" argument here) disagree with any other true Bible (Once again, the "No True Scotsman" argument).

We evangelicals don't say that, either. I don't even know what it means to assert that true Bibles disagree with other true Bibles.

You wrote:

Also, I have heard many "true" Christians say that there are no disagreements on major doctrinal issues among "true" Christians, yet, I have heard major doctrinal disagreements between people who said they were Christians and these people were strong members of an EV, Methodist, or some other Protestant denomination. They, the people in the Bible study sessions I attended, had major disagreements on "works vs grace," but then again, the "works vs. grace" doctrine might not be a major doctrine. Is this another "No True Scotsman" argument?

Without knowing what the specific disagreement was, it's difficult to comment. Evangelicals do have somewhat differing ways of explaining the relationship of grace and works. The Lutheran and Reformed evangelicals understand good works to be a necessary result and fruit of saving grace. Some dispensationalist evangelicals deny that good works are a necessary result of grace, but they do agree that those saved by grace should do good works. The difference is significant but minor compared to the differences between, say, evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses or evangelicals and Mormons on the same subject.

You wrote:

So Rob, three questions:

1. Does the Bible interpret itself or is this a false precept being taught by those in the Bible studies I attended?
   
2. Is it possible to understand the text written by those who wrote the books in the Bible if we don't understand the context that the text was written in?
   
3. Is the "works vs. grace" doctrine a major doctrine or is it a minor one that the Bible isn't very clear about?
   

1. What "the Bible interprets itself" means in evangelical discourse is that we should seek our understanding of the Bible by studying the Bible itself, not by importing into the Bible additional revelations or dogmatic pronouncements from outside the Bible. In this sense, yes, the Bible interprets itself. If someone means by this statement that there is no active role in the reader to understand what the Bible says, that is not correct.

2. Not fully, no. But there are statements in the Bible that can be understood without a full understanding of the background

3. See above.

Now, if you're done "deflecting" attention away from what I said, feel free to continue our discussion by engaging my earlier response to you.

[Vance]

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.

Not so.

The statement says,

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So,

it only applies to the autographs,

BUT

it does apply to the autographs.

So, the autographs are inerrant in the dictionary definition.

Bible worshipers unite!!!

Edited October 2, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

This "problem" is unrelated to the issue of the infallibility of the Bible. The fact that believers in the Bible disagree as to how to understand the Bible's teachings on various issues is a reflection on the finitude and fallibility of those believers, not any problem with the Bible.

Ok, so the Bible is NOT written clearly and plainly enough for all to properly understand it.

Got it.

BUT, of course, YOU do understand it properly. Those that disagree with you are WRONG!!!

Am I right?

[Vance]

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

Which, of course, is not referring to the Bible or even other written scripture, but to SPOKEN words.

D&C 68:4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

And the reason is,

D&C 50:21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

1. What "the Bible interprets itself" means in evangelical discourse is that we should seek our understanding of the Bible by studying the Bible itself, not by importing into the Bible additional revelations or dogmatic pronouncements from outside the Bible.

Now that right there is funny. :rofl:

So, you disregard such non-Biblical/extra-Biblical doctrines and influences as, Sola Scriptura, the Creeds, the Trinity, neoplatonic philosophy, etc?

Edited October 2, 2012 by Vance

[Darren10]

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

Glenn

Excellent, lol!!!

[shalamabobbi]

Now that right there is funny. :rofl:

So, you disregard such non-Biblical/extra-Biblical doctrines and influences as, Sola Scriptura, the Creeds, the Trinity, neoplatonic philosophy, etc.

It's as "off-base" as those who believe in the bible code.God suddenly stops doing things the way He's always done them and is wearied to deal any longer with His children so He publishes a book. Those who pray are rebuffed and directed to the book. If they have any questions they're to be directed to Rob the new intermediary between God and man.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

When you can stop rolling on the floor and have a serious comment or question, let me know.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

It's as "off-base" as those who believe in the bible code.God suddenly stops doing things the way He's always done them and is wearied to deal any longer with His children so He publishes a book. Those who pray are rebuffed and directed to the book. If they have any questions they're to be directed to Rob the new intermediary between God and man.

Not only do you engage here in ridiculous caricature of my view, you offer two contradictory caricatures of my view. That's an impressive achievement in so short a paragraph.

[Bill Hamblin]

You wrote:

1. What "the Bible interprets itself" means in evangelical discourse is that we should seek our understanding of the Bible by studying the Bible itself, not by importing into the Bible additional revelations or dogmatic pronouncements from outside the Bible. In this sense, yes, the Bible interprets itself. If someone means by this statement that there is no active role in the reader to understand what the Bible says, that is not correct.

Whatever the virtues of this idea in theory, in practice it has proven an abject failure.

See Evangelical Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Brazos, 2011)

[Vance]

Vance,

When you can stop rolling on the floor and have a serious comment or question, let me know.

I hope I can recover before you make another funny comment.

[Vookman]

I am not sure the Bible actually ever states that the only way to interpret the Bible is through the Bible.

When the 1st Council of Jerusalem did away with the Law of Moses in its application to non-Jews, I don't see any reference to earlier scripture.

Paul's teaching about the circumcision of the heart being superior to physical circumcision, and therefore negating its need, is not in the Bible.

The Calvinist five point teaching on God not actually wanting all people to be saved, or that Jesus' atonement only applied to those he intends to save and not the whole world would seem to be extra-Biblical additions.

I don't necessarily want to go after these topics. What I do mean is that "inerrantists" implicitly are stating the Bible is in error by failing to fully pronounce clear statements on these and dozens of other topics where there is disagreement on the meaning and practice of Christian dogma.

One huge area would be the area of Tradition, as defined by the Bible and not the Catholics, whereby many plain and precious and needful teachings are not contained in the Bible which were in fact received by the local congregations, and were intended, as stated in the letters of the Apostles, to be on a level equal to the scriptures in their application.

Splitting hairs about who actually believes more profoundly in what portion of the original writings of the Bible we now have seems to actually miss the point of inerrancy. Biblical concepts around the plurality of gods, the means of salvation, the state of saved man in the next life, and what is essential to salvation HAS been changed both by interpretation and by transmission. There are errors in the text. There are even more errors in translations. The most errors are in interpretation. When clear statements like Acts 2:38 or 1 Tim 2:4 can be ignored by interpretation, then it seems a minor point to actually acknowledge that we don't have the autographs, therefore there are errors in the text. Just check the apparatus of the GNT or NA26 at the bottom of the page.

[Darren10]

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

Heh. That was funny.

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).

Glad you brought that up. I've wondered how the Orthodox fit into the line of authority when they reject the papacy. Does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the Orthodox Church's priesthood authority and if so, how does that work exactly?

[volgadon]

Whatever the virtues of this idea in theory, in practice it has proven an abject failure.

See Evangelical Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Brazos, 2011)

Russian Orthodox like to use the following example. Write any text, have people read it, then ask them to explain what they understood from it. Different people will understand it differently. Some correctly, while others will impose their own conceptions, as every text can be interpretated in a multitude of ways. Without authoritative tradition, one is left with an anything goes attitude.

[Rob Bowman]

Bob,

You wrote:

I am not sure the Bible actually ever states that the only way to interpret the Bible is through the Bible.

Think about this: Wouldn't it be odd to claim otherwise if we were talking about other books? Imagine someone saying that the true meaning of the Qur'an is not in the Qur'an, or that Romeo and Juliet was not meant to be understood without the Cliffs Notes. What is the point of writing a book if its meaning is not to be found in the book!

You wrote:

When the 1st Council of Jerusalem did away with the Law of Moses in its application to non-Jews, I don't see any reference to earlier scripture.

You need to look more carefully; see Acts 15:15-18.

You wrote:

Paul's teaching about the circumcision of the heart being superior to physical circumcision, and therefore negating its need, is not in the Bible.

Paul's epistles are in the Bible, are they not? Apparently you mean the Old Testament. But Paul himself backs up his argument about physical circumcision not being necessary for salvation by appealing to the example of Abraham, who was justified before his circumcision (Romans 4). And the Old Testament itself speaks explicitly about the circumcision of the heart or the lack thereof (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 9:26; Ezek. 44:7, 9), the basis for Paul's reference to the same (Rom. 2:29; see also Stephen in Acts 7:51).

Besides, my position does not require that everything in the NT be explicitly supportable in the OT, any more than I would be required to show that everything in Isaiah is already in Genesis. Later writers are of course free to say things that had not yet been said in earlier books. But this point does not conflict with the common-sense understanding that the meaning of a book is to be found in the book.

You wrote:

The Calvinist five point teaching on God not actually wanting all people to be saved, or that Jesus' atonement only applied to those he intends to save and not the whole world would seem to be extra-Biblical additions.

I don't necessarily want to go after these topics.

Well, since the five points of Calvinism is a huge topic, I won't delve into that here either.

You wrote:

What I do mean is that "inerrantists" implicitly are stating the Bible is in error by failing to fully pronounce clear statements on these and dozens of other topics where there is disagreement on the meaning and practice of Christian dogma.

That doesn't follow. The Bible need not address everyone's theological questions to their satisfaction in explicit detail in order for the meaning of what the Bible does say to be found in the books of the Bible themselves. The lack of explicit comment on later theological questions certainly in no way implies that the Bible is erroneous in what it does say.

You wrote:

One huge area would be the area of Tradition, as defined by the Bible and not the Catholics, whereby many plain and precious and needful teachings are not contained in the Bible which were in fact received by the local congregations, and were intended, as stated in the letters of the Apostles, to be on a level equal to the scriptures in their application.

This is a different issue. Even if I agreed that there are truths not contained in the Bible that we need to know, that would not imply that the truths that are contained in the Bible are not found in the Bible!

You wrote:

Splitting hairs about who actually believes more profoundly in what portion of the original writings of the Bible we now have seems to actually miss the point of inerrancy. Biblical concepts around the plurality of gods, the means of salvation, the state of saved man in the next life, and what is essential to salvation HAS been changed both by interpretation and by transmission. There are errors in the text. There are even more errors in translations. The most errors are in interpretation. When clear statements like Acts 2:38 or 1 Tim 2:4 can be ignored by interpretation, then it seems a minor point to actually acknowledge that we don't have the autographs, therefore there are errors in the text. Just check the apparatus of the GNT or NA26 at the bottom of the page.

Your comments here confuse several distinct issues. Let me just zero in on one point. Assuming for the sake of argument that orthodox Christians are misinterpreting texts like Acts 2:38 and 1 Timothy 2:4, you can know this, and show it to be so, only by actually reading those texts and specifying how those texts say something orthodox Christians are supposedly ignoring or misinterpreting. Misinterpretations of a text do not change the text itself. For example, suppose I misinterpret a verse in the Book of Mormon to mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Whoa! Must we now conclude that the Book of Mormon is not clear on this point, or that it does not teach that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the Book of Mormon has errors even on this subject? Of course not. Misinterpreting the Book of Mormon does not change what it actually says. The text remains as a check against which the misinterpretation can be compared. So it is also with the Bible: misinterpretations of the Bible do not change the Bible, and we can know that someone is misinterpreting the Bible by comparing what they say to the Bible -- and in no other way.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Russian Orthodox like to use the following example. Write any text, have people read it, then ask them to explain what they understood from it. Different people will understand it differently. Some correctly, while others will impose their own conceptions, as every text can be interpretated in a multitude of ways. Without authoritative tradition, one is left with an anything goes attitude.

I would respond to what you say here, but first we will need to wait until an authoritative tradition has formed by which the text of your post may be understood. In the meantime, your post can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and might mean anything.

[MiserereNobis]

I've wondered how the Orthodox fit into the line of authority when they reject the papacy. Does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the Orthodox Church's priesthood authority and if so, how does that work exactly?

Disclaimer: There are a lot of details in this area that I am not completely clear on. Ecclesiology hasn't been a focus area for me in my personal studies.

From the Catholic point-of-view, the Orthodox still have valid apostolic succession, so yes, we recognize their authority as being valid. They are not heretics and they have not altered the all-important form/matter/intent that is required for the validity of Sacraments. The doctrinal disputes between the West and the East are ultimately very minor (for example, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only -- the Orthodox view -- or if He proceeds from the Father AND the Son -- the Catholic view).

The issue with the Orthodox is one of schism. When one rejects the Papal authority one is in schism, which is different from heresy. This does not, in and of itself, affect one's priesthood. It is more of a legal issue than a theological one. However, it is against Church law to seek out or accept Sacraments from those in schism, unless in case of extreme emergency (one may confess to an Orthodox priest if one is about to die, for example).

I am not sure how the Orthodox view the Catholics, but my guess would be that it is somewhat similar. I had one conversation with a Ukranian Orthodox priest in which he said that he recognized the primacy of the Pope but not his supremacy. In other words, the Pope is the Patriarch of the West, equal in primacy with the other major patriarchs of Orthodoxy, but he is not supreme over all of the Church. That's the sticking point, at least for this priest.

Pope John Paul II said that the East and the West were the two lungs of the Church. We pray often for unification.

[Darren10]

What is available is plenty. It is more than enough to establish what sorts of scribal practices were in use, what sorts of mistakes scribes made, and what sorts of deliberate changes to the text that scribes made. Your example of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which is one that some Mormons seem to find earth-shaking in its theological significance, demonstrates that even the most theologically interesting changes typically involved no more than a few words here or there.

Changing "sons of Israel" to "sons of God" and having YHWH among the sons of God receiving from the Most High God a portion of the nations divided are mere "few words here and there"? This isn't a significant doctrinal alteration in your view?

This claim confuses the issue on at least two fronts. First, the question of whether certain books that used to be included in the collection of scriptural texts were at some point removed is a different question than the question of whether textual changes were made to the books that are in the collection. Second, there is no evidence that any of the books that the Old Testament cites and that are no longer extant were ever part of a collection of scriptural writings accepted by part or all of the people of Israel. Jews and Christians historically have not claimed that the Bible contains all of the prophecies and visions ever given to human beings in the history of the world or even in the history of Israel. It doesn't bother us one bit that there are writings of prophets cited in the Old Testament that we've never seen. There is no evidence that these books were in the Bible and then removed; they were never in the Bible and as best we can tell were never part of a collection of scriptures used by any religious community.

So you're saying that revelations from God were NOT used as part of scripture? I think that goes to one of MormonMason's points in scriptural fallibility.

Discussing the unity of Isaiah is probably more than we can do here. Admittedly most scholars do treat Isaiah 40-66 as a later text that was added to Isaiah 1-39, but for different reasons than you give (the central reason is that Isaiah 40-66 shows knowledge of Cyrus and more broadly of the Babylonian Exile and its aftermath). But notice that here the alleged problem is not the removal of text or a book from the Bible but the supposed addition of text to a book of the Bible. As a Latter-day Saint, do you really want to argue that Isaiah 40-66 should not be in the Bible? (Hint: see the Book of Mormon.)

Seems to me that these Isaiah additions help authenticate the Book of Mormon. If these additions were added and belong there than that would go to show that Joseph Smith worked from an original text.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Whatever the virtues of this idea in theory, in practice it has proven an abject failure. See Evangelical Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Brazos, 2011)

See Kevin DeYoung's reviews "Christian Smith Makes the Bible Impossible" and "Those Tricksy Biblicists," the review "Smithereens!" by Robert Gundry, and also the review on the Every Good Path blog.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Rob Bowman