Inerrancy, Inspiration, Infallibility

[Meh_Gerbil]

First: I'm a conservative Christian and I'm happy to be so. What I mean by that is that I believe Christ's exclusive claim of being "the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Second: I believe the 66 books of the current canon to be the best source of truth for those seeking to establish a relationship with G_d. No other work compares.

***************************************************

Now then, I'm in the process of re-evaluating the three words which comprise the title to this thread and I'm finding that either I completely mis-understood their meaning as I was growing up OR that the pastors of most churches don't understand their meaning OR that there is a great deal of dishonesty flying about about the matter of Scripture.

I'm currently reading FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and I'm finding the book to be very freeing. The open handedness of being able to admit scribal errors/omissions/inclusions reconciles so many difficulties in my work with unbelievers.

When taking scribal errors, omissions, and additions into account, however, I have to wonder what the terms that make up the title of this thread actually mean.

Obviously, the texts are not 'inerrant' since they've been somewhat corrupted (although, IMHO, not significantly so). Saying the original manuscripts were inerrant is idiotic, IMHO, since we don't have those anyways.

As for 'inspiration', does anyone care to give a definition of this?

Same applies for 'infallibility' - in light of the textual evidence what actually is meant by this term.

*********************************************************

Where am I going with this?
I want the truth. I want to view Scripture properly. If you are KJV only you may sit out of this debate since I'm interested in worshipping the G_d of the Bible and not the Bible itself. Part of viewing things properly is getting rid of overly simplistic views of Scripture and admitting the true state of the matter.

:eek:

However, in trying to get to the truth of the matter I run into too many people who are afraid I'm about to chuck the whole thing. I assure you, I'm one of the called -- my faith exists because of G_d's hold upon me, not my hold on Him. Jump in and give your thoughts.

Thnx.

[Starkman]

Hello Mad Gerbil,

Well, you're dealing with a sensitive subject, you are. I'm dealing with it also and reshaping my understanding about inerrancy and infallibility.

What bothered me was claiming that the original manuscripts were inerrant when it's ludicrous to conclude this without sufficient proof; proof that would prove the author used every word perfectly with no spelling or grammatical errors. Who in the world has ever written like this when they're penning a letter? Additionally, there's many sources the authors used--Luke is very clear about this. If they copied/paste (to use a computer term), there would be those errors from the sources migrated into the author's work. If the author corrects those errors, who's to say he corrected them perfectly? Inerrancy takes on a bit of a twist dealing with just this.

Then there's understanding inspiration. Obviously the words were not dictated to the author (except, in many cases, where "Thus sayeth the Lord" is used by the prophets. Otherwise there's all kinds of ideas about how God inspired the writers. But one has to wonder if it was within this perfect, errorless, infallible manner prescribed by the many.

Then there's Jesus' word: Thy word is truth; sanctify them by Thy truth (John 17:17)...truth...in what way is it truth? In the modern scientific rationalistic manner of Western thinking we employ today? In an ancient Asian context quite different than our "literal" thinking? Hmm!

Well, it's not easy to work though. I think, however, either way, God is God, and He's quite capable of dealing with us and life in general as we work through these foggy paths! He ain't gonna be dethroned!

Starkman

[markporter]

What bothered me was claiming that the original manuscripts were inerrant when it's ludicrous to conclude this without sufficient proof; proof that would prove the author used every word perfectly with no spelling or grammatical errors. Who in the world has ever written like this when they're penning a letter? Additionally, there's many sources the authors used--Luke is very clear about this. If they copied/paste (to use a computer term), there would be those errors from the sources migrated into the author's work. If the author corrects those errors, who's to say he corrected them perfectly? Inerrancy takes on a bit of a twist dealing with just this.
Starkman, I guess this depends on how much guidance you think the Spirit gave when the scriptures were being written....I'm pretty sure he could prevent grammatical mistakes quite easily...

[Meh_Gerbil]

Whether or not the original manuscripts were 'inerrant' is about as far removed from being relevant as anything could be to our current discussion. We don't have those manuscripts so arguments about their status isn't telling us anything about the Bible we have today.

In short, a perfect 2004 Honda Accord at the factory in Japan doesn't do a dang thing for me when my copy of the car breaks down on a dark and lonely road on the night of a full moon while I'm being chased by werewolves..... I suppose I could take comfort in the fact that, theoretically, a perfect Honda existed at one time but that doesn't help keep my flesh on my bones while I'm being eviserated by a ravanous pack hell hounds.

Anyone care to define these three terms? (see subject)

[Starkman]

Hey, Markporter,

Starkman, I guess this depends on how much guidance you think the Spirit gave when the scriptures were being written....I'm pretty sure he could prevent grammatical mistakes quite easily...

Well, then you're moving into the dictate concept. Either the authors were free to write with inspiration the way a writer gets it (of course the biblical writers getting it from God) or God dictates. You can't stop with grammar and spelling; you'd have to go all the way if you're going to hold that rigid of an inspiration perspective. Nothing in the New Testament implies that the writers received their inspiration in this manner.

I think, however, we get afraid if we think otherwise, because there's that sense of "Well, if God didn't give it to them in perfect form with every word being perfect, then...then...well, what are we to believe?" I don't think dictation, however, is necessary for God to have communicated His truth to us. Sometimes He did, yes, but not everytime.

Mad Gerbil,

What are you asking? If the manuscripts we possess are inerrant, infallible and inspired? I don't think I know anyone who believes they are. It was only the original manuscripts to which these words were applied. (See the Chicago Statement on biblical Inerrancy).

If you're wishing to discuss those three terms in and of themselves, fine, but if we're going to talk about them in a biblical context, we'll have to stick with the original manuscripts in mind.

Thanks,

Starkman

[Meh_Gerbil]

Starkman,

First let me say that I realize this is a sensitve subject -- agnostics see a person who asks these sorts of questions as a target while Christians see he or she as someone who is losing faith. I assure you, I'm am neither.

Second, feel free to toss any sources out there that you feel would be helpful or have been helpful in your search. As I may have mentioned, I'm currently reading FF Bruce and intend to read some Metzger as well. At this stage I'm only interested in conservative scholars.

Third, why would you insist upon only speaking of inerrancy, inspiration, and infallibility in relation to manuscripts we do not posses? I suppose I could see a little value in that, but I'm more interested in addressing how we should view the document that sits on my nightstand. Hard Question: Do you speak only of the original manuscripts because you don't know what to claim about what you actually have so its easier to theorize about that which no longer exists?

Don't take that last question as an offense. It seems to me that it is hard to get anyone to talk about the current Bible we have. Instead, everyone wants to talk about original copies and frankly, that isn't helping very much.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Starkman:

I just re-read your post.
I would be interested in your definitions for those three terms in any context.

:teeth:

[Amazing Rando]

Good topic, Mad gerbil. I can tell you're an honest seeker with no axe to grind. I myself have been asking many of these same questions for quite some time. I get a little uncomfortable when others begin talking about the "infallability" of Scripture. :eh: I don't know all there is to know about the Bible- indeed nobody does, so I start scratching my head when someone tells me that they're 100% sure that the Bible is infallible in everything. How can they know this to be true? :huh:

I don't think that the statement "The Bible is inerrent" is something that can be conclusively said to be "known." It's one thing to take it on faith, for that's certainly a reasonable proposition, but it's another to say, "I know that the Bible contains no errors." I look forward to this discussion. :yes:

By the way, I admire your wisdom in asking thread participants to define what they mean by "inerrant, inspired, and infallable." Too many discussions fall apart because the two people have different definitions of the key terms. :dizzy: I suppose you'd like me to give my definition of your three words, so here's a stab at it.

Inerrancy and infallability both mean "free from defect."

Inspiration means that God had a hand in the writing of the Bible. How much so is another matter, however.

[BlueFalcon]

First, inerrancy is stronger than infallibility, because a few decades ago when people said the Bible was infallible (but still could have errors), the people who are now called inerrantists got ticked and started calling the Bible not only infallible but also "inerrant." And, as MadGerbil is disgusted with, they usually said it was inerrant "in the original autographs" or something like that, because no one MS today is considered completely inerrant. So the question always has been a theological one: can God inspire error? If he cannot, the Bible started inerrant. If he can, the Bible started with errors which became magnified as time went on.

So for MadGerbil it comes down to what MSS we have today, and which ones are considered the "most reliable" and so on. I have a proposition for him and everyone else. Can anyone find even one "error" at any place in the consensus of all the Greek MSS in existance today? (I will stick to the NT here because I have studied it most.) Definition: by consensus I mean majority.

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[freelight]

Greetings MG and all,

1)The Bible is not inerrant.

2)The Bible could be said to be inspired more or less.

3)The Bible is not infallible.



paul

[Meh_Gerbil]

Freelight:

Would you define your terms please?
Inerrancy, Inspiration, Infallibility.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BlueFalcon:

I'll dig some up for you. (at least some oddities).
One thing you can rest easy in -- I'm confident, thanks to the DSS that what we have today is an accurate representation of what was originally written. So I'm not coming from the standpoint of one who thinks any significant 'modifications' by the early church took place.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To Everyone Else:
I think a good place to start would be what the Bible says about itself. I don't think it claims anywhere to be inerrant or infallible while in the NT the OT is claimed to be 'inspired'. Something being profitable for rebuke, correction and whatnot isn't the same as claiming it is inerrant.

Since the books were originally separate, there is no one verse that applies to the entire colleciton of 66 books we have today.

[freelight]

Freelight:

Would you define your terms please?
Inerrancy, Inspiration, Infallibility.



Hi GB,

I would think these terms are already understood more or less. My last post stands for the reader to discern.

1) Bible is not inerrant = 'inerrant' meaning free of error.
2) Bible is inspired more or less = 'inspired' meaning in-spirited(breathed) by divine Spirit; can also mean enlightened by the Light of God.
3) Bible is not infallible = 'infallible' meaning incapable of erring or error.

I think these terms as flexible as they might be are not suitable to be applied to the Bible (particularly #1,3). A work brought forth thru the instrumentality of man can never be wholly inerrant or infallible. As far as literature, words, commentary is concerned....such is not inerrant or infallible. Words bear their own innate limitations and are subject to interpretation. The Spirit of truth alone has an inerrancy and infallibility because the Spirt is truth...and the only primal source of truth. Worship of a book or books(biblios) is to never usurp/take the place of worship of the Spirit...who alone is the Source of inspiration. Books, words, letters, commentaries, alpha-bet, literature may serve to guide our minds into spiritual realities....but they are not those realities which they espouse, point to and endeavor to express.

Therefore I stand by my original postulates.


paul

[Mr. Tinkles]

Mr. Gerbil (whoi is to say you are mad? not I),

the passage you are referring to is 2Tim 3:16-17 (odd how a 3:16 always tends to be interesting)

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

[rmwilliamsjr]

(odd how a 3:16 always tends to be interesting)

3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated
by Donald Ervin Knuth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Knuth%2C%252520Donald%252520Ervin/002-0521287-3324064)
yes----th (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Knuth%2C%252520Donald%252520Ervin/002-0521287-3324064)at Knuth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Knuth%2C%252520Donald%252520Ervin/002-0521287-3324064)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895792524/qid=1093584689/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-0521287-3324064?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated

by Donald E. Knuth (Madison, Wisconsin: A-R Editions, 1990), iii+268pp.
ISBN 0-89579-252-4 The text found in chapter 3, verse 16, of most books in the Bible is a typical verse with no special distinction. But when Knuth examined what leading scholars throughout the centuries have written about those verses, he found that there is a fascinating story to be learned in every case, full of historical and spiritual insights. This book presents jargon-free introductions to each book of the Bible and in-depth analyses of what people from many different religious persuasions have said about the texts found in chapter 3, verse 16, together with 60 original illustrations by many of the world's leading calligraphers.

The result is a grand tour of the Bible -- from Genesis 3:16 to Revelation 3:16 -- a treat for the mind, the eyes, and the spirit. Some have called Knuth's approach ``the way of the cross section.''

Available from the publisher, A-R Editions, Inc. (http://www.areditions.com) (phone 608-836-9000). A 22x38-inch poster containing all of the artwork is also available from the publisher; this poster was designed by Hermann Zapf.

``This book is ingenious, provocative, and wonderfully informative. A more imaginative and effective passageway into the Bible I have yet to see. Jews and Christians of all stripes --- in fact, nonbelievers too --- will read 3:16 with profit and delight.'' --William Sloane Coffin, Minister Emeritus, Riverside Church, New York City ``It is difficult to think that a totally new approach to the Bible could be found --- at least one that is sane. Donald Knuth has found one, and produced a book that is physically beautiful and intellectually and spiritually stimulating.'' --Raymond E. Brown, Professor Emeritus, Union Theological Seminary ``Around fifty-nine 3:16 verses that provide Donald Knuth with a whimsical sampling of the Bible's fifty-nine books, he has woven an elaborate tapestry of biblical commentary. Whether you are a Christian or a non-Christian, this commentary, drawing on Knuth's astonishing knowledge of biblical history and criticism, is sure to enrich your understanding of both testaments.'' --Martin Gardner

[BlueFalcon]

Since the books were originally separate, there is no one verse that applies to the entire colleciton of 66 books we have today.

That's why we read all the verses :-).

Peter, one of the pillars of the early church, recognized the NT and Paul's writings at Scripture. He quotes from Mt 17:5 in 2 Pe 1:17, and starts talking about prophecies with one from the NT regarding his own death (cf. 2 Pe 1:14 & Jn 21:18). In 2 Pe 1:19 he talks about a "more sure word of prophecy," i.e., the NT, but first know this, "that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy did not come in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pe 1:20-21).
Peter talks in 2 Pe 3:15ff. about "our beloved brother Paul," who writes things with the wisdom given him, but some people try to pervert his words, as they do the "other" or "rest of" the scriptures (2 Pe 3:16), equating Paul's writings as also scripture.

Of course 2 Ti 3:16-17 has already been mentioned, and "all scripture" means "all scripture." In 1 Ti 5:18 Paul says, "The scripture says ... 'the laborer is worthy of his reward,'" quoting Mt 10:10 as scripture. He also quotes the NT at other times (e.g. 1 Co 11:24-25). James quotes the NT as scripture when he says, "If you fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, you do well" (Jas 2:8). He appears to be quoting nothing other than Mt 22:39, calling it now the "royal law" and "scripture"!

Others will disagree with me and my reading of these verses, but I see all the time the authority of God that the NT authors claimed for themselves; they wrote as if they were speaking the very words of God, and they were knowledgable to their own prophetic gifts from God as well, and used them to edify the church of early times down to the present age.

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[Meh_Gerbil]

BlueFalcon:

Thanks for the post.
I'll weigh your evidence there as I work on refining my view of Scripture.
I was hoping someone would jump in with the ultra-fundamentalist-kool-aid-drinker view.

(NOTE: That last sentence was a joke. :ahem: I graduated from Tennesse Temple University, a small fundamentalist school in Chattanooga, so I'm quite conservative myself.)

*waves a hanky and shouts AHHH-MENNNN*

[Jaltus]

Definitions:

Inerrancy: In current technical jargon, inerrancy refers to the original autographs having no errors in any manner whatsoever. This is the view held by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (who are not the same group). For more, do a quick search on The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Infallibility: According to current technical jargon, infallibility means the Bible today is without error with respect to doctrine and practice. Conservatives who are not Evangelicals or Fundamentalists would hold to this position. Those who reject infalliblity and inerrancy are by definition liberals. I am not name calling, mind you, I am going with facts.

Inspiration: the definition for this is going to depend on who you talk to. Originally associated with the phrase "God-breathed" in II Timothy 3:16 and limited to being used about the Bible alone, in the 17th-18th century this English word became to be used about anything which causes the spirit/soul to soar. Thus we say an artist is "inspired," even though the word technically did not originally mean that. For a biblical understanding of God-breathed in terms of inspiration, one would need to do a search on what it means to be God-breathed.

Adam and Eve were God-breathed and began perfect, but soon screwed themselves up by not following God. Perhaps the same can be said of the scriptures, which is where inerrancy came from.

As for those saying the Bible is not inerrant or infallible, such statements are outside the bouands of this forum. Please leave ideology at the door as Biblical Languages 301 is intended to be informational rather than contentious.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Jaltus:

Thanks for the input.
I'm rather new to this site, if you could direct me to a more appropriate board for the discussion I'll gladly take it there. It is my intent to get input on how we should view what sits on my nightstand so I cannot help but feel it will get into an area not entirely fitting for this room.

Where should I take this?

[markporter]

Hey, Markporter,



Well, then you're moving into the dictate concept. Either the authors were free to write with inspiration the way a writer gets it (of course the biblical writers getting it from God) or God dictates. You can't stop with grammar and spelling; you'd have to go all the way if you're going to hold that rigid of an inspiration perspective. Nothing in the New Testament implies that the writers received their inspiration in this manner.

I think, however, we get afraid if we think otherwise, because there's that sense of "Well, if God didn't give it to them in perfect form with every word being perfect, then...then...well, what are we to believe?" I don't think dictation, however, is necessary for God to have communicated His truth to us. Sometimes He did, yes, but not everytime.


Hey Starkman

yes, I see your points, but I don't think it necessarily follows that God would have to have dictated it word for word for it to be free of grammatical mistakes. Imagine that you're in the room with someone who you love and respect and writing something down, and they point out that something you've written down is a mistake - I think you'd be likely to correct it. Now if that happens in your mind before it is written down I'm not sure that it implies dictation, but just a level of interaction.

[Starkman]

Hey Starkman

yes, I see your points, but I don't think it necessarily follows that God would have to have dictated it word for word for it to be free of grammatical mistakes. Imagine that you're in the room with someone who you love and respect and writing something down, and they point out that something you've written down is a mistake - I think you'd be likely to correct it. Now if that happens in your mind before it is written down I'm not sure that it implies dictation, but just a level of interaction.
Hey Markporter,

If the apostle Paul is writing one thing, does not know that he has written it grammatically incorrect, how would he know what is correct? If a voice or thought tells him, "This is incorrect; it should be...", is that not dictation (dictation doesn't have to be audible)? How is Paul to know what is correct unless the voice is a voice--dictation--or the thought is equivalent in expression to a voice?

See, if we're already assuming the Bible is inerrant and infallible, and grammar as well as the most perfect choice of words and sentence structure is included within these terms, then I don't see how we can escape concluding that God just influence the writers. He would have had to do more than this. But is this what Scripture teaches about ALL of what we call Scripture? I have a hard time concluding that this is so.

If we think about Peter's comment, for instance (II Pet 3) about his correlation with Paul's writings and "other Scriptures," I think it's asking a bit too much to insist that Peter is raising all of Paul's writings--even those he had yet written--to the level of Old Testament Scripture. Was Peter really saying, "Paul's writings are sometimes hard to understand, but what he writes is Scripture--God-breathed, God-inspired, infallible, inerrant and, equal to "thus sayeth the Lord" of the Old Testament prophets"? No, I don't think that's what Peter was saying. Rather, I think Peter was addressing the issue of Paul's authority, but not in the manner I just described. I mean, can't the boy (Paul) just write a nice letter to a friend, once in a while, and talk about God in it without the haunt of "Other Scripture" attached. Wasn't this what Paul did when he wrote to Philemon? Do we have to push the inerrant-infallible card for Philemon? I find it hard these days (when I never did for these many years) to do so.

Am I saying that God did not use these letters, maybe even "inspire" all of them? Yes. But I have a hard time, especially when the early church had the same hard time, stamping everything we have in our Bibles today as Scripture if what we mean by "Scripture" is what I described above. I guess I'm trying to decide if God even intended us to go this far with His Word.

Admittedly, my questioning here creates a lot of issues. I'm aware of that, but I'm also trying to work through these qualities I think we may have unwarrantedly forced into the making of all of what we call Scripture. Yes, it is all Scripture; that goes without saying, but what we mean by Scripture...well, that's what I'm after. I'm not a "liberal" either (no offense meant to those who are); I'm simply trying to be practical and think through these matters. Oy vai! It's tough, you know!

Starkman

[Meh_Gerbil]

If I might rant here for a moment:

The reason this is important is because an incorrect view of Scripture causes so much destruction. When a minister holds up his Bible and declares what he has in is hand is the inerrant, infallible Word of G_d he is setting up members of his flock for a fleecing the first time they run into a reasonably well educated skeptic. How many people's faith has to be utterly destroyed by skeptics before ministers will learn that overly simplistic views of Scripture cause so many more problems than they solve.

I see these questions as CENTRAL to evangelism in a post-Christian America. We can no longer assume everyone sees the Bible as authoritative. In the information age the Christian has to get his ducks in a row on this topic.

Simply understanding that scribal errors occur can clear up 90% of a sceptics 'best' material.

Ministers should be immunizing believers instead of setting them up.

Keep talking guys.

[John Reece]

. . . G_d . . .

I'd be interested to know your reason for the spelling.

[Meh_Gerbil]

John Reece:

I spell the designation for the Creator as G_d because I saw a Jewish fellow spelling it this way. I then read the book of Deuteronomy. After that enlightening read I came to the conclusion that my casual use of the word G_d had to stop, both in internet posts and in spoken conversation.

Even while supposedly representing the Holy, I've spent too much of my life taking his name in vain by being sloppy. I don't mean by swearing, I mean by saying, "G_d is thus or He is thus or He'd never do thus". On many levels, I've become convinced that the homogenized, chopped, cleaned, and sealed 'god' of the modern Christian is a dangerous idol. The true and living G_d is beyond definition, beyond systematic theology, and He cannot be sanitized and handed to us in a brown bag through a drive through window.

I'm tired of insulting G_d by throwing his name around like He is held in my pocket. When I drop the vowel, it reminds me that I'm speaking of one that I've only begun to fear as I should. It cannot make up for the utter blasphemy which has characterized my filthy, irreverent mouth, but it is a step in the right direction.

I'm a product of a generation that doesn't know how to show respect.
It's time I learn.

[markporter]

Starkman - I think that there is a difference between what I am suggesting and dictation - in the case which I'm using the primary creative input is coming from the human author, and only that which is actually wrong is being corrected - I think that that allows a lot more freedom. Also note that it is being corrected by the author's own consent (due to his willingness to be in Christ under the authority of the spirit) and so the inspiration of the spirit is still leaving room for creativity.

*shrug* if the idea doesn't appeal to you then don't worry - I'm not saying that it's my own position, I'm not sure that I have framed an exact opinion on the whole thing.

[BlueFalcon]

I've heard the question recently here, and if I were a skeptic, I'd bring the house down on this one question: "How do you know what books are the Word of God?" I mean, we've got the Apocalypse of Peter, the Secret Gospel of Mark (which is probably a forgery, BTW), and umpteen different other apocryphal writings, but are they the Word of God?

While most people think the Canon was open until the 3rd or 4th or later centuries, because of all the disputes recorded in church history, there may be another answer, i.e., that all the disputes were a reaction to an already established canon set up from the earliest of times by apostolic figures. I mean, Papyrus-46 (P46) from around the year 200 has all the books of Paul complete up until the end of the MS is destroyed: it has Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and part of 1 Thessalonians from where the rest of the MS has perished. Why aren't apocryphal books included in this extremely early MS? P45, from the early 200s, has Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, of course mostly fragments in much of those, but it originally had these 5 books in completion! Why not other books? The answer, I believe, is because the precedent for what books were the Word of God had already been set from the earliest of times, i.e., by apostolic figures themselves.

Look at the relatively complete MSS Codex Vaticanus Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century. While Sinaiticus contains some apocryphal books, it only does so after Revelation. From Matthew to Revelation it has 27 books, no more, no less. Vaticanus only contains NT books until its leaves after Hebrews 9:14 perished. A case can certainly be made that the books we have in our NT have not been put together and selected happenstance, although many figures in the 2nd-5th centuries argued adamantly about what had, apparently, already been put together.

Another one to look at is Clement of Rome, who in ca. 100 was quoting from nearly every NT book we have today, especially Hebrews!

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[Starkman]

Hey BlueFalcon,

Your point is the whole reason why I think it is futile for a Christian to argue with the atheist about the Bible's inspiration, inerrancy or otherwise. Like Francis Schaeffer used to do, we need to go back much further: where does personality, love and such like come from? Where do values and morals come from? Things like this. Schaeffer started here and worked toward the Bible's explanation as the only plausible answer, over and above the other world religions.

Good points.

Starkman

[BlueFalcon]

Like Francis Schaeffer used to do, we need to go back much further: where does personality, love and such like come from? Where do values and morals come from? Things like this. Schaeffer started here and worked toward the Bible's explanation as the only plausible answer, over and above the other world religions.

Yes, I think Francis Schaeffer was way before his time, an educated genius behind fundamentalist philosophy. I wish there were more like him today. I like Chuck Colson in this regard also.

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[rmwilliamsjr]

Yes, I think Francis Schaeffer was way before his time, an educated genius behind fundamentalist philosophy. I wish there were more like Gim today. I like Chuck Colson in this regard also.

Yours,

BlueFalcon
FS got his ideas from C.Van Til who got them from Abraham Kuyper. read the source, Kuyper is not fundamentalist.....

[BlueFalcon]

FS got his ideas from C.Van Til who got them from Abraham Kuyper. read the source, Kuyper is not fundamentalist.....

Rmwilliamsjr, perhaps I am wrong on this. But he was on Jerry Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour or whatever it used to be called back then and didn't he appear in Newsweek as the "Guru of Fundamentalism"? I guess it's all up to interpretation, but "evangelical" rather than "fundamentalist" is probably a better label. I guess most evangelicals are inerrantists, but all fundamentalists are so, are they not? Didn't Schaeffer defend inerrancy?

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[Meh_Gerbil]

The problem of reaching the agnostic isn't really with inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration -- since even if the Bible were perfect and we had the original manuscripts written in gold ink they'd still reject the Scriptures. The problem isn't with the Bible, but the message of the Bible.

Excuses such as scribal errors and so forth are just that, excuses.

However, these excuses are used to wreck the faith of those who don't know better -- even by unbelievers who know the answer to the question they are asking (I've had as much admitted to me by coverts from atheism). Nailing down this important topic and equipping believers to handle it well will go a long ways towards dulling the darts of the evil ones.

Before I can help, I need to get it straight in my head first. :smile:

[Starkman]

The problem of reaching the agnostic isn't really with inerrancy, infallibility or inspiration -- since even if the Bible were perfect and we had the original manuscripts written in gold ink they'd still reject the Scriptures. The problem isn't with the Bible, but the message of the Bible.

Excuses such as scribal errors and so forth are just that, excuses.

However, these excuses are used to wreck the faith of those who don't know better -- even by unbelievers who know the answer to the question they are asking (I've had as much admitted to me by coverts from atheism). Nailing down this important topic and equipping believers to handle it well will go a long ways towards dulling the darts of the evil ones.

Before I can help, I need to get it straight in my head first. :smile:
Mad Gerb...

Your words are so very true. After twenty-five years of being a studying Christian, I am still challenged with atheist and agnostic arguments. It isn't long, however, before I see what the root (and weakness) of the arguments are, but one can never win them fighting from a Fundametalist approach. It used to be, however, very disconcerting to have to deal with the unbeliever's "scholarship." Wouldn't have been so tough if I were a scholar myself, you know.

If find that most all of the arguments (against Jesus having resurrected, for example) come down to this: skeptics never consistently demand the pressure cooker of scrutiny for all other literature as they demand of the Bible. The basics are clear. One can find all the errors one wants, all the textual reasons for rejecting the Bible as perfect--that's fine, because it's neither here nor there that the Bible be proven inspired, infallible or inerrant to simply see the concensus of the message: that Jesus was the Son of God, that He came to give His life by dying on a cross as a ransom for men, who would otherwise never be able to enter into a relationship with God, and thus have everlasting life, and that He resurrected. It makes no difference that the Bible is a religious peice; if the skeptic is going to be consistent, he should scrutinize all works before believing them. Who lives like that?

Well, I don't want to get off track here. Jaltus has given some good definitions of inerrancy, infallibilty and inspiration.

Incidentally, Bluefalcon, Schaeffer was on the board that created the Chicago Statement of Faith, which endorses inerrancy. It was a milestone document, as I understand it. He was fundamentalist and definitely evangelical in his beliefs, but very, very smart in how he communicated and discoursed about "truth" and such with non-believers so as to not loose them. I don't know, though, if I'd call him a Fundamentalist in the traditional sense though. In some ways he was, but he was so able to step outside the fundamentalist circumscription and relate to where people where.)

Starkman

[barryrob]

*** it-1 pp. 1202-1203 Inspiration ***

INSPIRATION

The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source. When that source is Jehovah, the result is a pronouncement or writings that are truly the word of God. The apostle Paul stated at 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired of God." The phrase "inspired of God" translates the compound Greek word the·o´pneu·stos, meaning, literally, "God-breathed" or "breathed by God."

This is the only occurrence of this Greek term in the Scriptures. Its use here clearly identifies God as the Source and Producer of the Sacred Scriptures, the Bible. Their being "God-breathed" finds some parallel in the expression found in the Hebrew Scriptures at Psalm 33:6: "By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, and by the spirit [or breath] of his mouth all their army."

Barryrob

[BlueFalcon]

I apologize now for the long post, but please read me out :-).

Many NT apologists use as the base of all their argumentation the boast that thousands of Greek MSS underly the NT. This, in a way, is true.

But the fact is that the eclectic critical edition underlying almost every modern translation relies on just a handful of MSS, rejecting all the rest as being in error! This at least weakens the apologist's basic tenet for all argumentation, if not destroys it altogether.

For example, if one has a Nestle-Aland GNT, check out the following places:

Readings supported by only ONE MS in the Synoptic Gospels:
Mt 4:23 EN OLH TH GALILAIA (B)
Mt 5:39 DEXIAN SIAGONA SOU (B)
Mt 8:18 OCLON (B)
Lk 6:41/42 PWS p. KATANOEIS et a. DUNASAI (B)
Lk 7:44 MOI EPI PODAS (B)
Lk 14:17 ESTIN (B)
Lk 19:38 ERCOMENOS O BASILEUS (B)
Lk 21:11 KAI AP OURANOU SHMEIA MEGALA ESTAI (B)

Readings supported by only TWO MSS in the Synoptics:
Mt Inscriptio KATA MAQQAION (Aleph1 B1)
Mt 5:11 PAN PONHRON KAQ UMWN (Aleph B)
Mt 6:28 AUXANOUSIN OU KOPIWSIN OUDE NHQOUSIN (Aleph1 f1)
Mt 12:25 EIDWS DE a. TAS (Aleph*.2 B)
Mt 14:4 O IWANNHS AUTW (B Z)
Mk 2:22 om. BALLOUSIN/BLHTEON p. KAINOUS (Aleph* B)
Mk 2:4 AGAQON POIHSAI p. SABBASIN (? W)
Mk 14:10 AUTON PARADOI (B 2427)
Lk 2:52 EN TH (? L)
Lk 6:26 UMAS KALWS EIPWSIN (P75 B)
Lk 9:62 EPIBALWN THN CEIRA EP AROTRON KAI BLEPWN EIS TA OPISW (B f13)
Lk 18:21 om. MOU p. NEOTHTOS (B D)
Lk 18:22 TOIS OURANOIS (B D)
Lk 24:13 EN AUTH TH HMERA HSAN POREUOMENOI (P75 B)
Lk 24:48 UMEIS MARTURES (P75 B)

Readings supported by only THREE MSS in the Synoptics:
Mt 13:9 om. AKOUEIN p. WTA
Mt 13:22 om. TOUTOU p. AIWNOS
Mt 14:12 AUTON
Mt 15:39 MAGADAN
Mt 17:8 AUTON p. MH
Mt 19:21 TOIS
Mt 20:20 AP AUTOU
Mt 22:30 AGGELOI p. WS et a. EN
Mt 26:53 PLEIW
Mt 27:51 AP ANWQEN EWS KATW EIS DUO
Mk 4:28 PLHRHS SITON
Mk 5:10 AUTA APOSTEILH
Mk 8:37 DOI
Mk 9:1 WDE TWN ESTHKOTWN
Mk 15:24 STAUROUSIN AUTON KAI
Lk 3:32 SALA
Lk 5:12 IDWN DE
Lk 6:33 GAR
Lk 8:20 IDEIN QELONTES SE
Lk 8:26 GERASHNWN
Lk 10:6 EKEI H
Lk 10:35 EDWKEN DUO DHNARIA
Lk 10:38 om. EIS THN OIKIAN (AUTHS)/EIS TON OIKON AUTHS
Lk 12:38 OUK AN
Lk 17:23 EKEI H IDOU WDE
Lk 18:24 EISPOREUONTAI
Lk 18:25 TRHMATOS
Lk 19:17 EUGE
Lk 19:26 om. AP AUTOU p. ARQHSETAI
Lk 19:40 KRAXOUSIN
Lk 21:25 ESONTAI
Lk 21:36 DE
Lk 23:32 KAKOURGOI DUO
Lk 23:42/43 ELEGEN IHSOU MNHSQHTI MOU OTAN ELQHS EIS THN BASILEIAN SOU KAI EIPEN AUTW AMHN SOI LEGW
Lk 24:44 TOIS
Lk 24:47 EIS p. METANOIAN

I could compile list after list, but alas, who has the time! The point I think is valid for this thread, that the chances of an "inerrant" NT existing in the pick-and-choose edition of the modern critical Greek NT are pretty slim. Now the chances rise dramatically for all of us, and especially the NT apologist, when the readings in the consensus (i.e., the majority) of all the MSS is considered. A reading that is preserved in only one MS, or even just a few, indicates a change in the overall MS tradition that occured relatively late and in a locality where it was not able to influence the rest of the tradition or even to propagate itself to any limited degree.

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[Jaltus]

I think the above point is not quite fair when we consider that many of the passages listed above have only one or two early manuscripts which show the passages in question.

The other issue is that not everyone goes with whatever Aland and Aland give us. I personally do text critical work even when teaching Sunday School (I taught through Jude, and that has two of the biggest text critical issues in the entire NT). For that matter, no translation today accepts the NA 27 (or whichever version) uncritically. I know the NIV went a different way in a few places and I know the ESV did as well.

[BlueFalcon]

I know the NIV went a different way in a few places and I know the ESV did as well.

This is true, but for the most part they follow the text they are given, e.g.:

Mt 4:23 - "he went throughout all Galilee" (ESV) with only one Greek MS.
Mt 8:18 - "the crowd" (NIV) with only one Greek MS.
Lk 6:42 - "How can you say" (ESV & NIV) with only one Greek MS.

And there are many more places the translators simply followed the Nestle-Aland eclectic text where only 2 or a few more Greek MSS were in support, against every other Greek MS available today.

Yours,

BlueFalcon

[Starkman]

But the fact is that the eclectic critical edition underlying almost every modern translation relies on just a handful of MSS, rejecting all the rest as being in error! This at least weakens the apologist's basic tenet for all argumentation, if not destroys it altogether.

I don't think this holds, Blue.
First, as I understand it (I know little about textual criticism), the issues you bring up do not affect essential doctrine. Further, where the texts are in congruency, and where there is harmony, the evidence then becomes overwhelming in terms of "manuscript support." There is consistency, in other words, the minor issues aside. I think that is the apologist's argument and not the defense of a verse alone supported by only one or two manuscripts.

Thanks,

Starkman

[rmwilliamsjr]

i just wanted to express my thanks for this thread.

i got:


Beckwith, Roger T.
Title *The Old Testament canon of the New Testament Church : and its background in early Judaism*



Metzger, Bruce Manning.
Title *The Canon of the New Testament : its origin, development, and significance*


from the library to learn a little more about the topic, realized reading this thread that i don't know enough....

so thanks.

[Pete4Honduras]

I’m not sure if anyone is still around. I might be preaching to the…janitor.:shy:



Many appropriate things have been said about the meaning of “inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy.” Please accept the following thoughts to complement the ideas in the preceding posts.



“Inspiration” does not mean:

- Every word that came from the author’s pen or mouth was the inspired word of God. Neither Paul’s grocery lists nor a birthday card to his sister would have necessarily been inspired.

- That the words had to come to the paper (or other medium) perfectly the first time. Certainly the authors were free to write drafts of their works editing them before distribution (I think this can be inferred from Lk 1.1-4).



Inerrancy:

It is clear that we do not possess the original manuscripts and are quite incapable of analyzing them directly. But inerrancy can, and should, be inferred for the original manuscripts considering the fact that inerrancy was part of the criteria that God established back in Deuteronomy 18.15-22 for the verification of a true prophet. This standard is based in the very character of God—that which comes from him can contain no error.



Infallibility:

Jaltus said that a current definition is, “without error with respect to doctrine and practice.” I would add “with respect to everything to which it speaks.” (N.B. This does not mean that our theology is infallible.)



Mad Gerbil’s Honda as Scripture:

A perfect Honda back at the factory is a tremendous aid to any Honda on the road. Without that model you would never have been able to get yours. Your Honda that is only 99% “perfect” because it has a scratch in the paint or a tear in the upholstery will give you years (I know I had a Honda once) of service. I would add to your analogy that many liberals (by Jaltus’ definition) would have you think that your Honda is missing the engine or is really just a bicycle.



I applaud the comments that were made which emphasize the importance of our own lives “validating” the truths of the Bible. While our basis for belief must be historically verified, our living as salt and light before others is our primary apologetic.



Pete

[Meh_Gerbil]

Well I finished FF Bruce's book 'The Canon of Scripture'.
It is one I'll likely have to read a 1/2 dozen times before I get it.

I plan to get Metzgers book on the NT next. Although I'll likely drop it into low for a bit and read through some of the NT just for fun. I need to get a Scripture fix in -- too much reading about shouldn't replace the actual reading of.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a series of thoughts I have on the subject:

1: FF Bruce's book has been very freeing for me -- I think removing some of the 'stiffness' from how I view the Bible has actually caused it to come alive for me. I view it now less as a tool to whack people over the head and more as a testimony of every day men and women -- admittedly moved by G_d -- attempting to communicate what they saw and heard.

2: I like my new position because instead of the Bible being a 'golden plate handed down from on high' it now has human finger prints all over it. To me this seems more representative of how G_d has worked throughout history. It causes me to truly love and appreciate those who've gone on before, those who carefully passed the truth on. I feel connected to the apostles and early church fathers, to people studying scripture in the middle ages, and to people right up until the present day now -- and to those that will come after me.

3: Unfortunately, all I don't know has been laid bare. GAH! There is much study to be done, I shall not rush it -- I have an eternity to cram it all into. :teeth:

Thank you for your thoughts.