Some thoughts in biblical errancy, biblical inerrancy and faith

[jason]

There have been a couple of thread lately (Mostly started by Robyn Banks) that deal with problems in reasoning by some using an inerrantist hermenutic to look at the biblical text. It got me thinking about the question.

I do actually agree with Robyn on a number of his points about some apologists rushing to defence of things and widing up well out of their depth and making some silly mistakes. I'm not sure what is acheived by parading this about, I suppose if I could be bothered I could go and find some totally amateur "skeptic" who is a complete know nothing and parade his errors and ignorance around to make a point, but I don't think it would acheive anything (.. and who would you choose ? There are so many to pick from ).

But I did stumble across the obvious point in the whole question.

The reality is that the position of the bible being an inerrant text is at the end of the day a position that is based ultimately on faith that it is the revealed word of God, free of error.

Now no doubt someone is going to read this and leap from their chair and exclaim, "Ah Ha !! I knew it all along", to which I think might just have to reply or

Because the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God is also ultimately based on faith.

Both positions are obviously logically possible and law of excluded middle says that both understandings cannot both be correct at the same time and in the same way (although I will note that the two options are no exhaustive of the 4 possible combinations of possibilities).

And although both positions are based on faith, reasons can be advanced for both perspectives. I think the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is an excellent example of an attempt to codify these ideas.

Look at it this way, there have been a number (dare I say very large number, I guess I lack the depth of background to count) of "Bible Errors" that have turned out to be no such thing at all with the discovery of new data from a variety of field.

For example, take the Hittite people in the OT. It was claimed for a time that the bible was in error because no trace of them could ever be found (Can I just note in passing that nobody ever whines about no evidence for the Amalakites being found ... ), until evidence of them turned up, and the bible was found to be right after all.

I also recall something about a temple to dagon and another God being next to each other, and this being cited as an error until somebody went and found the place in question and it turned out to be so after all (Sorry I know that is wafflely, but no doubt somebody can fill in the blanks if anybody really cares to know the details).

In the NT you have some very "out of character" behavior from Pontius Pilate at the time of Christs cruxifixtion that was talked about as a problem, until information came to light noting that actually it made perfect sense given Pilates political situation at the time.

Take the book of Acts. Once claimed to be endlessly full of errors, but now known to be extremely accurate in the incidental details that Luke records.

So time an agains "biblical errors and problems" have turned out to be resolveable with a new discovery or an advance in knowledge.

How do you know some of the other more famous problems in the Bible will not (or would not) yield a simple and obvious explanation if the right detail that is currently unknown was brought to light ? It is entirely possible that the two genalogies of Christ have some incredibly simple and obvious way to understand them that completely clears up any problem, we are just missing the fact in question that would clear this up. There is no way to know that such information will not come to light in the future, and it certianly may have existed even if it never comes to light.

The text has certianly in the past turned out to be right against what its critics have claimed. And on quite a number of occasions. So I think it has certianly earned the benifit of the doubt when the question comes up.

You might disagree and think it does not. And thats fine. I don't expect you to buy into the idea of inerrancy in scripture unless you are a christian (and perhaps not necessarily even then). All I ask is that you keep in mind that inerrancy is a position that ultimately rests on a foundation of the idea that the text is what it claims to be, and that you claim that it is not inerrant rests principally on a claim that the text is not what it claims to be.

Both are positions that rest upon faith in the final analysis and that endless arguing over specific tiny cases seems pointless unless this very real fact is kept in mind. People will just end up going around in circles and nothing will ever get answered or be acheived.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic. What does everyone else think.

As a side note, I would ask people to refrain from derailing this thread by jumping up and down about this case or that case (although feel free to correct me if one of the cases I states above is mistaken or you can shed more light on it) in the bible, as I really think it would be much much more fruitful to think about this meta-issue of biblical inerrancy rather than run around endlessly thinking about issues when we ignore this very real difference in approach.

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

The reality is that the position of the bible being an inerrant text is at the end of the day a position that is based ultimately on faith that it is the revealed word of God, free of error.

Now no doubt someone is going to read this and leap from their chair and exclaim, "Ah Ha !! I knew it all along", to which I think might just have to reply or

Because the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God is also ultimately based on faith.

- Nahhh. It is not the case that I have negative faith in the validity of the bible, it is the case that I lack faith in the validity of the bible.

- Skepticism is my default. I daresay it's everyone's default; the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. For example, I do not have faith that unicorns DON'T exist. Or faith that medusi DON'T exist, and so on. People have faith that these kinds of creatures DO exist... skeptics lack that faith.

[ChrisChillin]

Anyway, just my thoughts on the topic. What does everyone else think.

Both of you have made some good points in this multi-thread discussion. I'm glad that common ground has been found in agreeing that inerrancy is ultimately an assumption or faith position, and not something that can be simply demonstrated. Rather, inerrancy can only be upheld by means of an unceasing defense against every and any error or contradiction suggested by skeptics, critics, scholars, or (sometimes) people who really need to get a life. If such errors can be shown to be nothing of the sort, then inerrancy as a viable assumption remains, although it cannot be and never will be secure.

That is a problem I have with strongly promulgating inerrancy. I think the constant addressing of nitpicking unfortunately results in diverting attention and energy from larger concerns, such as the prophetic proclamation of the gospel of Christ against the injustices and evils of the world. Of course, I have other problems with inerrancy itself. I do not consider myself an "inerrantist", at least as I have seen it defined and understood in my environment. I believe it may present an inadequate and misleading approach to the Bible. Hopefully, I will be able to share more on what I've been discovering soon enough, but not at the present moment.

That being said, I do agree with you, that many have jumped to find many errors, problems, or contradictions that aren't really there. This is the "hermeneutic of suspicion" that seeks to deconstruct the text due to unfortunate or questionable agendas. Maybe they can explain it as a knee-jerk reaction to the extremes of fundamentalism, but the manner in which some skeptics tear into the Bible is deeply disturbing. Setting aside differing worldviews and beliefs/nonbeliefs in God, does not the text still stand as a remarkable corpus of literature that has contributed vastly to our human heritage? But some cannot be reconciled to that, committed instead to read the Bible only through the lens of an ideological war with believers. They will spew out such venom due to the measure of their contempt for those they believe to be brainwashed, immersed in a cult, corpse worshiping, delusional, etc. It is truly a sad spectacle.

This is not to say that I consider all skeptics/atheists/whatever to be like this. Rather, (and whether this would surprise them I do not know) I value many of them for their contributions as challenging alternative voices in the great conversation. That challenge has helped devotees to return to the text with questions, doubts, and new perspectives. It has increased the disciplines of study, research, and reflection. If not met in such a way, could the church realistically consider itself a spiritual Israel ("he who struggles with God")? I do not think so.

Thus, I am grateful for Robyn's comments, your responses, and the thoughts all this has engendered. I hope as I continue to formulate my own thoughts, I can add more in the near future.

[LGM]

Take the book of Acts. Once claimed to be endlessly full of errors, but now known to be extremely accurate in the incidental details that Luke records.

Really?!? Care to back that up with something other than your bold assertion?
I'm curious, is Peter raising Tabitha from the dead an "incidental detail" now known to be "extremely accurate"?

Or is it that someone named Peter, and someone named Tabitha, actually might have lived in the ANE during that time the "incidental detail"?


LGM
...I do agree however, that arguing with literary idolatrists over the details of their mythology is pointless...

[BeHereNow]

I do actually agree with Robyn on a number of his points about some apologists rushing to defence of things and widing up well out of their depth and making some silly mistakes. I'm not sure what is acheived by parading this about, I suppose if I could be bothered I could go and find some totally amateur "skeptic" who is a complete know nothing and parade his errors and ignorance around to make a point, but I don't think it would acheive anything (.. and who would you choose ? There are so many to pick from ).

I've seen Robyn state before that he could examine almost any inerrantist and they would be found to do this at some point. Maybe you should challenge him on it.

[jason]

I've seen Robyn state before that he could examine almost any inerrantist and they would be found to do this at some point. Maybe you should challenge him on it.

In what way should I challenge him ?

Jason

[Minnesota]

Now no doubt someone is going to read this and leap from their chair and exclaim, "Ah Ha !! I knew it all along", to which I think might just have to reply X or Y

Because the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God is also ultimately based on faith.

I'm not positive that I understand what you've said here because you have separated the two comments by an empty line and begin the second with a capital "B," making it read as an incomplete sentence. However, if I assume the second sentence ties to the first, what you seem to be saying is that:

The reality is that the position of the bible being an inerrant text is at the end of the day a position that is based ultimately on faith that it is the revealed word of God, free of error, because the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God is also ultimately based on faith.

If this is incorrect please advise. If it is correct, then you appear to be saying that both positions (the Bible is inerrant and the revealed word of god, and the Bible is not inerrant or the revealed word of god) are based on faith. I suppose in the very broadest sense of "faith" this might be considered so, just as "proof" may be taken quite broadly. But here, you appear to be using "faith with a narrower meaning, indicating a necessity based on a lack of evidence.

Now, it far, far easier to find proof for a positive than a negative, which is why to prove the Bible is not errant is quite difficult: you would have to prove every single statement as true. Best bet here is to rely on faith. But when you say the Bible is the revealed word of god, you've made a positive assertion, one that should be easily substantiated. So why the need to resort to faith on this point? Simply provide evidence that the book is the "revealed word of god." Or is there no such evidence to be had?--the statement is no more than one of faith. Okay, I'll accept that you require faith to believe both.

Now let's look at the other side. About the inerrancy issue, the skeptic will say, "I only need to show one (not, every) statement is erroneous, to show the Bible is not inerrant, and here it is that erronious statement: . . . ." No faith needed here at all, we've got evidence of error. As for the "revealed word of god," The skeptic needs no more faith to belief this is false than he does the assertion that Mickey Mouse is alive and well, and living in sin with Minney in Coral Gables Florida. The supporting core of faith issues almost always resides in positive statements. Something IS. "The revealed word of god IS a fact." So when one counters an issue of faith, it is not necessary to posit any kind of faith that the subject is not so, but merely say, "prove it." I have no faith that there is NO revealed word of god, I simply have not seen any evidence to believe it. Of course we could get into an infinite regression of "whys' here, but, we're not seeking a faith on par with the certainty of mathematical proof. I have no faith that there is NO revealed word of god, just as I have no faith that there is no twelve-headed serpent living living under my house. To use "faith" to characterize such certainty is to abuse the term, and we don't want to do that, Do we? Because, if we did, then absolutely everything we believed would be a matter of faith, rendering the term devoid of the special meaning it now has. A were that the case, you would wind up saying things like, "I have faith that I can write my name." "I have faith that if I cut myself I will bleed." "I have faith that if I jump up I will come down."

So, the upshot of all this is that it doesn't require any kind of faith at all to take the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God.

[BeHereNow]

In what way should I challenge him ?

Jason

Suggest an inerrantist that you think does not fall prey to the errors Robyn Banks indicates. Let him examine this person's work, and see if they do. If they do, pick another one, and so on. See if his claim is true that almost all inerrantists use any rationalization they can.

[jason]

The skeptic needs no more faith to belief this is false than he does the assertion that Mickey Mouse is alive and well, and living in sin with Minney in Coral Gables Florida. The supporting core of faith issues almost always resides in positive statements. Something IS. "The revealed word of god IS a fact." So when one counters an issue of faith, it is not necessary to posit any kind of faith that the subject is not so, but merely say, "prove it." I have no faith that there is NO revealed word of god, I simply have not seen any evidence to believe it.

If you are going to wade into the conversation and claim "X is a problem" "Haha I have you !!" then you are exercising some faith that the bible is errant on this point.

That was all the point I was trying to make.

You are certianly exercising faith when you make the positive claim that the ancient text in question does not deserve the benifit of the doubt as most ancient texts are accorded. Especially in light of the number of times that book has found to be right even after it was claimed to be in error.

So, the upshot of all this is that it doesn't require any kind of faith at all to take the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God.

It does take faith to claim the text is not to be given the benifit of the doubt as all ancient texts generally are. Why should this text in question be given special treatment. Why are people so sure it must be held to a different standard from any other text ?

Jason

[Minnesota]

If you are going to wade into the conversation and claim "X is a problem" "Haha I have you !!" then you are exercising some faith that the bible is errant on this point.


That was all the point I was trying to make.

You are certianly exercising faith when you make the positive claim that the ancient text in question does not deserve the benifit of the doubt as most ancient texts are accorded. Especially in light of the number of times that book has found to be right even after it was claimed to be in error.

Jason, jason, jason. Why do you think I took pains to explain how the word "faith" is being used here? So YOU wouldn't make asinine statements like this, and I wouldn't have to make unnecessary replies like this. Reread what I've written, perhaps it will sink in. If not, good luck in school.

[SlipSlidin'Away]

The reality is that the position of the bible being an inerrant text is at the end of the day a position that is based ultimately on faith that it is the revealed word of God, free of error.
<snip>
Because the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God is also ultimately based on faith.
<snip>
Both positions are obviously logically possible and law of excluded middle says that both understandings cannot both be correct at the same time and in the same way (although I will note that the two options are no exhaustive of the 4 possible combinations of possibilities).
<snip>
Look at it this way, there have been a number (dare I say very large number, I guess I lack the depth of background to count) of "Bible Errors" that have turned out to be no such thing at all with the discovery of new data from a variety of field. . . .

So, if believing the Bible is inerrant or not believing the Bible is inerrant are both faith-based, then we should pick the one that we can now understand, right?

If I said, "look, there's a tree over there!" and you saw nothing, would you then conclude that you would see the tree after many years with new discoveries of data, etc.?

So, maybe what you're saying is that there's no reason for us to believe in the Bible being inerrant until it is shown to be so.

When all the discoveries are made and the data is found, if it is conclusive, maybe then people could/should believe the Bible is inerrant, but not until then.

Slipster

[Robyn Banks]

Because the position that the bible does contain error and that it is not the revealed word of God is also ultimately based on faith.

I disagree.

If I were to claim that the Bible certainly has errors (literally, with no hyperbole), then this would be a matter of 'faith'. For one can not reason inductively to a conclusion of certainty without faith.

But as my position is that the Bible almost certainly, and beyond any shade of reasonable doubt, contains errors, then there is no 'faith' involved at all. It is proper use of an inductive argument.

I would place the 'almost certainty' that the Bible has errors somewhere between my knowing that the earth is not flat, and my knowing that George W. Bush is an immoral idiot. But leaving room for a small shade of remaining skepticism, I would have to say that I have the highest degree of confidence in each of these claims.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[Seasanctuary]

The main reason people can maintain the Bible contains no errors is that as a text in human language it can ALWAYS be reinterpreted.

So, if it turns out there really was no global flood...all you have to do is interpret the flood right out. This works for anything...anything at all.

[markporter]

possibly true - although I'm not sure that absolutely everything is open to that sort of reinterpretation. The question becomes 'can you do it with an honest conscience' - is the solution you propose likely. Miller has a list at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/errblvs.html of common errors believers make, and the top of the list is "If there is a POSSIBLE solution, then the problem is RESOLVED"

[Robyn Banks]

Miller has a list at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/errblvs.html of common errors believers make, and the top of the list is "If there is a POSSIBLE solution, then the problem is RESOLVED"

This is the first time I've read something sensible quoted from this guy Miller. Maybe he's not so bad after all.

Robyn Banks