Tektonics and errors in the Bible

[Pitchforkpat]

I guess this how you get to voice your 'concerns' about some of the material on Tekton Ministries site.

I was happy to see them admit that some "bible difficulties" can be explained as "copyist errors". My question, though, is that I was of the understanding that the fundy position was that no errors can be contained in God's book. To say a copyist error took place from the original manuscript is one thing, but the original manuscript of 2 Samuel (7 years of famine) is actually NOT the Bible. The Bible is what I have on my shelf, and it contains errors whether you stick the word "copyist" in front or not.

[James Peter]

Yes it does. That is an unavoidable fact. So the question is how do we explain them? The options are either that the manuscripts became partially corrupted over time or that the 'errors' were in the originals... Most prefer to say the originals were free from error because it is the easiest of the two solutions, although its really a gross simplification because most of the books that we have in our bibles are conflations of several earlier books... so what is 'the original'? The first time that Isaiah took its current form? Or the original individual prophecies before they were collected together? Both? Its not a simple situation to resolve.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I guess this how you get to voice your 'concerns' about some of the material on Tekton Ministries site.

I was happy to see them admit that some "bible difficulties" can be explained as "copyist errors". My question, though, is that I was of the understanding that the fundy position was that no errors can be contained in God's book. To say a copyist error took place from the original manuscript is one thing, but the original manuscript of 2 Samuel (7 years of famine) is actually NOT the Bible. The Bible is what I have on my shelf, and it contains errors whether you stick the word "copyist" in front or not.

Wow, let me the first to welcome you to Tweb. Now, before you get pounced, let me advise you to read the forum guidelines. Sounds like your post would better be placed in Apologetics.

So how many of these copyist errors affect Bible doctrine, anyway?

[Pitchforkpat]

James Peter:
Well that's awesome James Peter. I speak to a lot of believers and I have yet to hear anyone admit that there are errors in the Bible.

Charleen:
Thanks for your advice about where to put this kind of question. I'll find my way around in time. In answer to your question:
I think you make a good point when you ask how these errors affect doctrine. Well one thing is that I hear soooo many fundamentalist preachers insist that there cannot be errors in the Bible because it's God's book and he essentially 'dictated' it. Many go so far as to claim that if there is an error, the whole foundation crumbles.

I do wonder why the Jehovah would allow such errors to get into his book, especially on important matters like the case of where David counts his troops in Sam 24/Chron 21 and is given a choice of punishment. In one version he is offered 3 years of famine and the other he is offered 7 years. This contradition could be called important since David's inability to choose means that God then kills 70,000 people. I just tend to think that peoples lives and the feelings of their loved ones is important enough to get the choice right.

[jpholding]

I guess this how you get to voice your 'concerns' about some of the material on Tekton Ministries site.

Not really, no. You go to Apol 301 for that or even my own area.

My question, though, is that I was of the understanding that the fundy position was that no errors can be contained in God's book.

The major doctrinal statement on inerrancy (the Chicago Statement) specifically states that only the original mss. are claimed to be inerrant. Whether you'd call the signators to the primary evangelical document on this subject "fundies" I don't know.

I do wonder why the Jehovah would allow such errors to get into his book, especially on important matters like the case of where David counts his troops in Sam 24/Chron 21 and is given a choice of punishment.

What's so important about that from today's perspective that it shakes the earth for you? The matter you cited remains the same.

As for allowing errors, I have an article on the why of that too...search for the word "inerrancy".

I just tend to think that peoples lives and the feelings of their loved ones is important enough to get the choice right.

I don't see how feelings is of any relevance to the matter.

Well, I don't have time to hop and go to every section so if you want to keep this up with me further, maybe mods can move this thread.

[Pitchforkpat]

J P Holding,

I certainly don't mind the thread being relocated to where you suggest. I'll look for it later and reply to your reply a little later. Have to do some errands right now.

[Pitchforkpat]

The major doctrinal statement on inerrancy (the Chicago Statement) specifically states that only the original mss. are claimed to be inerrant. Whether you'd call the signators to the primary evangelical document on this subject "fundies" I don't know.

The question becomes then, why would God allow such errors to enter his book? I can search for it, as you suggest, but I’d love a succinct answer if you’re able.

Secondly, if you admit that the bible contains errors (only the original mss. don’t which is convenient since none exist), then why spend so much time trying to deflect criticism of said errors and contradictions?

I don't see how feelings is of any relevance to the matter.

You don’t see how the feelings of those affected by God killing 70,000 people is of any relevance? I assume I’ve picked you up wrong on that. No one could be that callous, so perhaps you could explain what you meant by that statement. Thank you

[seer]

You don’t see how the feelings of those affected by God killing 70,000 people is of any relevance? I assume I’ve picked you up wrong on that. No one could be that callous, so perhaps you could explain what you meant by that statement. Thank you

Because feeling have no bearing on the subject.

[Pitchforkpat]

Because feeling have no bearing on the subject.

Have you no compassion or humanity? Only about 2500 people died in on 9/11. There was untold misery and suffering of those who lost people who perished in that disaster. If God killed almost 30 times the number of people killed on 9/11, then there would be an exponential amount of misery suffered by those who had lost fathers, brothers, sons, etc.

Why do you not care about people's suffering. David was given a very important choice concerning the punishment that would be dealt out. The bible can't even get it straight what the punishment offered was (remember God was supposedly punishing David for having counted his troops). Since David left it to the 'mercy' of God to decide and God decided to kill 70,000 people, I think the suffering of the 70,000 people as well as the unfathomable suffering of those who would have lost loved ones matters. Why don't you seem to think that massive amounts of suffering and anguish is relevant?

[Jorgen]

I guess this how you get to voice your 'concerns' about some of the material on Tekton Ministries site.

I was happy to see them admit that some "bible difficulties" can be explained as "copyist errors". My question, though, is that I was of the understanding that the fundy position was that no errors can be contained in God's book. To say a copyist error took place from the original manuscript is one thing, but the original manuscript of 2 Samuel (7 years of famine) is actually NOT the Bible. The Bible is what I have on my shelf, and it contains errors whether you stick the word "copyist" in front or not.

One problem with the 'copyist error' defence (which the Chicago Statement affirmed, BTW), is that it assumes some "original" manuscript. However, if you have a review of recent Dead Sea Scroll scholarship on the issue, it is a moot point as to whether there is any such thing as an "original" piece of scripture. The current scholarly position tends towards a diversity of scriptural traditions at all stages of the text, making the search for an original Ur-text rather futile!

[Seasanctuary]

So how many of these copyist errors affect Bible doctrine, anyway?

They affect the inerrancy doctrine!

Heh.

[jpholding]

The question becomes then, why would God allow such errors to enter his book? I can search for it, as you suggest, but I’d love a succinct answer if you’re able.

I'll answer with two points:

1) The Muslims believe that that is how Allah preserved the Quran. It seems to me there's some correspondence with this and the degree of fanaticism that can emerge from Islam.

2) One word: Relics.

Secondly, if you admit that the bible contains errors (only the original mss. don’t which is convenient since none exist), then why spend so much time trying to deflect criticism of said errors and contradictions?

Because people ask me questions about them. And because so many Skeptics make such silly arguments over them. Why do they spend time pointing them out as much as they do?

You don’t see how the feelings of those affected by God killing 70,000 people is of any relevance?

Not when it comes to the textual issue. I don't know what in the world you're envisioning here that would make any person at a later date feel any better or worse for such reasons.

One problem with the 'copyist error' defence (which the Chicago Statement affirmed, BTW), is that it assumes some "original" manuscript. However, if you have a review of recent Dead Sea Scroll scholarship on the issue, it is a moot point as to whether there is any such thing as an "original" piece of scripture. The current scholarly position tends towards a diversity of scriptural traditions at all stages of the text, making the search for an original Ur-text rather futile!

What cereal box are you getting this "scholarship" out of?

1) What kind of silliness is it to say that an "original" has to be "assumed"? What planet do you live on where there isn't a first time a document is actually written down?

2) DSS scholarship doesn't say any such thing. Stop trying to buffalo people here with lollygagging. We know better.

3) The "position" you describe is held by a fringe minority that can't even seriously quantify why any alleged diversity is a problem. It also stands against all consensus in how textual critcism is done on secular texts.

I can see it won't be long before you get added to my list of Stupid People, Jorgen.

[Jayhawker Soule]

One problem with the 'copyist error' defence (which the Chicago Statement affirmed, BTW), is that it assumes some "original" manuscript. However, if you have a review of recent Dead Sea Scroll scholarship on the issue, it is a moot point as to whether there is any such thing as an "original" piece of scripture. The current scholarly position tends towards a diversity of scriptural traditions at all stages of the text, making the search for an original Ur-text rather futile!

What cereal box are you getting this "scholarship" out of?

1) What kind of silliness is it to say that an "original" has to be "assumed"? What planet do you live on where there isn't a first time a document is actually written down?

2) DSS scholarship doesn't say any such thing. Stop trying to buffalo people here with lollygagging. We know better.

3) The "position" you describe is held by a fringe minority that can't even seriously quantify why any alleged diversity is a problem. It also stands against all consensus in how textual critcism is done on secular texts.

That is inaccurate. See, for example, Emanuel Tov's

• Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, and
• Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and Judaean Desert Discoveries

Here and elsewhere the talk is of a 'pluriformity' of textual witnesses. To ascribe this view to "a fringe minority" is simply ignorant.

I can see it won't be long before you get added to my list of Stupid People, Jorgen.

Perhaps you should spend more time familiarizing yourself with the relevant scholarship and less time stooping to such childishness as this.

[FatHippy]

Hi PitchForkPat,

I do wonder why the Jehovah would allow such errors to get into his book, especially on important matters like the case of where David counts his troops in Sam 24/Chron 21 and is given a choice of punishment. In one version he is offered 3 years of famine and the other he is offered 7 years. This contradition could be called important since David's inability to choose means that God then kills 70,000 people. I just tend to think that peoples lives and the feelings of their loved ones is important enough to get the choice right

I think that there is an assumption here to be investigated..... Did God intend that these texts were to become a body, or were they gathered as a description of faith/tradtion/history etc. The purpose in gathering the texts and the way they have been edited/redacted has a great bearing on what they say.

JP Holding has pointed you towards the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, which is a fairly late thing - late 19th century. Indeed, I think you struggle to find any doctrinal emphasis on the inerrancy of scripture before about the 16th century.

IMHO, it is a doctrine that developed around the reformation, with the break from the hierarchy and tradition as authority in the wake of Erastian humanism. It reflects a shift in the understanding of the bible to a more encompassing role.

A more liberal approach to the bible sees it as holding within it human fallibilities and prejudices. It also recognises that there was not the concept of documentary reportage that we have, and therefore a striaght literal reading is not often the best. One has to understand the context and the influences to see the text as close as it was to the original. This means acknowledging potential errors and responding to the implications of those errors.

FatHippy

[salvationfound]

hey pitchforkpat (cool name)

Personally I have no problem with the idea of errors in the Bible. Its not
that big a deal to me. But whenever someone asks me about said errors I
have to ask the question "what type of error are we talking about here?"

-copyist error
-exaggeration error (ex. if a person in the Bible had 99 horses but the Bible
says 100 is that an error or just rounding up?)
-metaphorical error (is the passage meant to be taken literally?)
-perspective error (ex. One gospel says Mary went to the tomb the other
says Mary and someone else went to the tomb is that really an error or
just perspective)
-the author actually being accurate (ex. Paul speaks of his conversion at
different times differently. Did Luke screw up or was Paul just telling
his conversion story differently and Luke was just trying to be accurate in
saying what Paul said)

I guess my question would have to be what constitutes a contradiction
actually being an error?