Those who believe in biblical inerrancy (i.e., the Bible does not contain any errors, historic, scientific, or otherwise) normally start with a theological conviction which is arrived at deductively. They believe, like I do, that God is perfect and without error. They also believe, like me, that the Bible is God’s word. Conclusion? The Bible is perfect and without error. Once this theological presupposition has been adopted, the Scriptures can be understood and interpreted in light of this belief.
The problem often arises that one creates a new hermeneutic (i.e., method of interpretation) that can manipulate the text to make it conform to this doctrine of inerrancy. Any inductive claim to error is rejected outright and interpreted in light of some sort of “inerrant hermeneutic.”
Others, however, do not approach the Scripture with such a theological presupposition. They take an inductive approach: if they believe in inerrancy, they do so because they don’t find any errors in the Scripture. This type of inerrancy is rare. Why? Because there do appear to be some issues that seem, in the minds of many, to be beyond resolution. Many of these do not believe in inerrancy simply because they have found what they believe to be errors.
As a necessary aside, I find myself compelled to say that many of those who do not believe in inerrancy do believe in the inspiration of Scripture. In fact, I know dozens of very fine and godly evangelical scholars who are completely committed to the proclamation of the Gospel and the defense of the Christian faith who are not advocates of inerrancy. In other words, a denial of inerrancy does not in any way necessitate a denial of the faith.
I believe in inerrancy. I do not believe that when the Scriptures are rightly understood there are any errors, historic or scientific. Inductively, however, I do often find myself scratching my head concerning certain passages. My theological conviction does play a part in my hermeneutic, but it is not determinative. It cannot be. I am either searching for truth or seeking to confirm my doctrine and conform a text to my presuppositions. I pray each day that it is the former.
With this in mind, I was asked the other day by a student as to what is the most difficult problem that you have found in the Bible that challenges your view of inerrancy. Without a doubt, it is the problem of Abiathar in Mark 2.26.
Here is the skinny:
When Christ was confronted by the Pharisees for allowing his disciples to eat on the Sabbath, he responded to them with this:
22 And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry;
26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?”
27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
28 “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
The problem is that Abiathar was not the high priest at the time of this incident according to the Old Testament. According to the account in 1 Sam 21.1-7 Ahimelech was the high priest. Abiathar was his son, who would later become high priest.
To further complicate the problem, Matthew and Luke do not include the phrase epi Abiathar archiereos, “at the time Abiathar was high priest.” For those who hold to Markan priority (i.e., they believe that Mark was the first Gospel written and used as a source by the others—which is the majority view among Evangelicals), they might respond by saying that the reason for Luke’s and Matthew’s omission was that they were correcting the error of Mark.
Dan Wallace mentions five possible reasons for the problem (source):
1. Text-critical: the text is wrong and needs to be emended
2. Hermeneutical: our interpretation is wrong and needs to altered
3. Dominical: Jesus is wrong and this needs to be adjusted to
4. Source-critical: Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong
5. Mark is wrong
I would add one possible option to this list:
6. The Old Testament is wrong, Christ corrects it
Without going into the arguments for each or my position (and I do have my opinion), what are your thoughts here? Do you think the Bible has erred? If not, how do you explain this without sacrificing your hermeneutical integrity to an inerrant presupposition?
Why bring this up on an Evangelical theology blog? Because these are the type of issues that we need to discuss.
203 replies to "A Possible Error in the Bible?"
Lisa:
Refer to this post of mine here (#36):
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/07/a-possible-error-in-the-bible/comment-page-3/#comment-28826
You want to use the blockquote command.
Sweet! Thanks.
Curt, without going to look, I think I found the Olson description in “The Mosaic of Christian Belief.”
As I understand verbal plenary, it means God guided the writer to use one specific word at any specific point. In other words, God chose each word of scripture – it is inspired down to the very words. That’s how I read both Grudem and Erickson, and, (I think) Geisler/Nix. To me, that’s dictation. Your description sounds like it allows more human input and is in the neighborhood of where I am right now. But that is not, as I understand it, the typical evangelical view. Plenary, of course means the whole Bible, every word, is inspired.
Lisa, what I mean by development of the the canon is the process of recognizing which books belong and which don’t. Since that happened over a period of time, I call it development. Somewhere on P&P is a post entitled “An Errant Canon of Inerrant Books” or something like that. Check the links on the right maybe.
bethyada –
Do you see the explanatory hoops we have to jump through to explain to one another and the world that God created the world perfect but that he did not prevent man from falling and now the world is broken. This perhaps makes God look silly.
It matters little whether the world mocks the truth, I am not trying to defend what I think makes God look the best to the world, that hate him after all; I am trying to defend what I think is true and be faithful to my God.
This is true and thanks for reminding me. We don’t come to our beliefs based upon what is easy to explain. We base it upon the truth. But I am still struggling to see inerrancy as the word that faithfully describes the purpose and intent of God in the Scripture. To many ‘cracks’ exist in this pristine package.
Lisa wrote:
And Curt, sure I have time between the one summer class I’m taking, single parenting, working and assisting with writing small group curriculum…piece of cake 😉
Oh, now I feel guilty! 😉
Seriously, didn’t make it to the library as I’d hoped. But my goal is to get my hands on that article on Monday…hopefully.
Thanks, Lisa!
Thanks, Dave, for the Olson reference. And to Joshua for another possible source.
Dave, you wrote:
As I understand verbal plenary, it means God guided the writer to use one specific word at any specific point. In other words, God chose each word of scripture – it is inspired down to the very words. That’s how I read both Grudem and Erickson, and, (I think) Geisler/Nix.
From the quote in Lisa’s post, I can see how one might be confused by the distinction between dictation and verbal, plenary inspiration. (This thread is actually the first I’ve heard “verbal, plenary inspiration” referenced in years!) I dug out my ancient copy of “General Introduction.” I think some of what they have to say is actually quite helpful for our discussion. From p. 34 of the 1981 ed., under the heading “How Does Inspiration Operate?”:
One final question on the nature of inspiration deals with the means or process. What means did God’s causality employ to produce scriptural authority without interfering with the personality, freedom and individuality of the prophetic agents? Or how did God produce an infallible book through fallible men? A frank and forthright answer, and yet often very reluctantly given by biblical scholars, is “We don’t know.” It must be asserted that God inspired the Scriptures even though it cannot be ascertained exactly how He did it.
They go on to describe this as a mystery. That resonates with me because it reminds me of the mystery of the incarnation. Even with all the exhaustive study, from the early church until today, the incarnation is still a mystery to a great extent. I see the inspiration of Scripture in a similar way.
A critique, though, is that they too aggressively attack what they call the “dynamic view” in such a way that they could make themselves appear to be leaning toward dictation again. Judging from their rejection of the dictation view, this is not the case. But they could have made that more clear. They do ask a good question that relates to our discussion (p. 45):
How can the final product be infallible or authoritative if there was no divine control over the actual composition?
I should also quote Geisler and Nix on their view of verbal plenary inspiration (p. 46):
[God] guided in the very choice of words used within the personality and the cultural complex of the writers so that, in some inscrutable manner, the Bible is the word of God while being the words of men.
so that, in some inscrutable manner
Like Fu Manchu?
Like Fu Manchu?
LOL
Claim by Grudem regarding graphe, Systematic Theology, p. 76 (I haven’t verified this, just passing it on):
[W]e must realize that the Greek word graphe (“scripture”) was a technical term for the New Testament writers and had a very specialized meaning. Even though it was used fifty-one times in the New Testament, every one of those instances uses it to refer to Old Testament writings, not to any other words or writings outside the canon of Scripture. Thus, everything that belonged in the category “scripture” had the character of being “God-breathed”: its words were God’s very words.
He goes on to expand this to New Testament writings based on 2 Peter 3:16 and 1 Timothy 5:18.
A (hopefully) clarifying point on the development of the canon: “Canon” is the body of work by a particular author. The only one who can “develop” a canon is the author himself (or a group of authors if the work is a compilation). What the early church did was seek to recognize and accurately determine what was in fact canonical, i.e. what was truly part of this body of work. Not to at all diminish their efforts or results, but the only thing that truly makes a work “canonical” is its actual authorship.
Curt, no worries over guilt. I actually enjoy this interaction and have a particular interest in this topic and hermeneutics. How we treat the process of God’s transmitting His revelation into a propositional format, will determine what we ultimately think of Him. Its quite a significant topic, at least IMHO.
Interestingly, I was going to cite that quote from Geisler and Nix (#155) with my other one but decided against it. I had also hoped to gather definitions from Grudem and Chafer but you beat me to it. So to complement your previous quotes, Chafer says this,
“by verbal inspiration is meant that, in the original writings, the Spirit guided in the choice of the words used. However, the human authorship was respected to the extent that the writer’s characteristics are preserved and their style and vocabulary are employed, but without the intrusion of error. By plenary inspiriation is mean t that the accuracy which verbal inspiration secures, is extended to every portion of the Bible so that it is in all its parts both infallible as to truth and final as to divine authority.” (Systematic Theology, Vol 1, pg 71,
Chafer also notes the significance of words , citing 1 Corinthians 2:13 and indicating that the holy men moved by the Spirit are transmitting the very voice of God. I think the logical conclusion from this position is that if divine authorship is ultimately the source, then to ascribe errancy necessarily forces that on the author.
More from Grudem: On pages 80-81, he has a section titled “This Does Not Imply Dictation From God as the Sole Means of Communication.” He writes:
It must be emphasized that the Bible does not speak of only one type of process or manner by which God communicated to the biblical authors what he wanted to be said. In fact, there is indication of a wide variety of processes God used to bring about the desired result. [His emphasis.]
He goes on to reference God speaking “in many and various ways” (Hebrews 1:1). And gives Luke as an example:
On the opposite end of the spectrum from dictation we have, for instance Luke’s ordinary historical research for writing his gospel. . . . This is clearly not a process of dictation.
He concludes by speaking of God’s “providential oversight and direction” of each author’s life and work.
Note: Obviously, these quotes don’t establish the validity of any particular viewpoint, and there are many areas where I would strongly disagree with Grudem myself. I just post this to clarify his view of inspiration.
Thanks, Lisa. I agree that this is an extremely significant issue, and I appreciate the seriousness with which people from different sides (or better put with differing perspectives) are treating it. I’m enjoying this discussion as well. Your Chafer quote is helpful, and harmonizes well with the others.
For what it’s worth:
The works I’ve been checking all list a number of different theories of the mechanism for inspiration. The three that seem to be most apropos to our discussion are:
The dictation theory (I think we’re all clear on this).
The dynamic theory, which seems to give the writers complete freedom to express the concepts of God in their own ways.
The verbal theory, which seems to be a median position between the above two, still allowing for great freedom for the authors but ensuring the infallibility of the resulting scripture including the actual wording used.
If God determines the words, it’s dictation. If the writer is constrained to using only one specific word in a given place, then the writer has no freedom and is simply taking dictation. The distinction made by VP (verbal plenary) advocates strikes me as lip service only. If the writers don’t contribute the words what do they contribute? Ink? VP would say style, but style is based on word choice and usage.
I looked up Erickson and his definition is the same as Grudem, Geisler/Nix and Ted Dorman, and it still doesn’t sit well with me.
As I understand it, VP seems to say that inspiration needs to create accuracy of each word. I would say inspiration need only ensure accuracy of the concept being communicated. For example, if Luke (who claims investigation, not inspiration) accurately reports an event, does it need to be inspired? Let’s say Luke spoke with Mary, other family members and disciples and they all told him Jesus was about thirty years old when he started his ministry. So Luke reports that in 3:23. What does inspiration add to Luke’s accurate report?
Explain why this needs to be inspired – ” When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas…”
Just a few posts ago, folks were agreeing that Paul sometimes expressed his own opinions and judgments. With clarified definitions of VP has anyone had a change of mind?
If scripture (or a person) accurately communicates God’s intent, it is infallible on the basis of accuracy and authoritative because of content, even if not inspired. (Not as clear as I’d like, but maybe I can elaborate later)
I have no problem at all with divine control to ensure accuracy, I just question whether it needs to determine every word, which verbal requires.
It’s as if VP believes any level of accuracy is impossible without inspiration. I disagree.
To me, VP inerrancy places it’s faith in the words themselves, not in the power of the Spirit that brings those words to life. Case in point – for 400 years, the KVJ version ruled the English speaking world. These days it has been replaced by newer translation. In part because of changes in the language, but also because research and textual criticism have exposed problems in the KJV. Yet that version, clearly errant in places, has changed the world. That’s because the Holy Spirit’s power can operate in spite of imperfection.
As I said earlier, God’s ability to communicate is not held hostage to inerrancy or verbal plenary inspiration. Or to put it another way, error cannot veto God’s purpose.
Dave, I think you are misunderstanding verbal plenary. If God dictated word for word, that would be dictation. Verbal plenary is God breathing out His words through the use of the writers words so that every word that comes from the writers pen is inspired but it is their words. As Curt mentioned earlier, there is a mystery in that.
But what makes Scripture authoritative? It’s because its breathed out of the mouth of God. Otherwise, on what are we basing authority? And why would we want less than God’s very own words to base our authority?
The beauty of the inspired texts is that it is inscribing God’s revelation for us utilizing the only effective tool to do so – language. as Paul says spiritual thoughts for spiritual words. That language must effectively and accurately communicate Him and words are extremely important. Chafer notes this concerning concepts as being inspired,
“Quite apart from the fact that ideas are not transferrable by any other medium than words, this scheme ignores the immeasurable importance of words in any message. Even a legal document which men execute over trivial matters may depend wholly upon the word therein. Almost every covenant and promise contained in the Bible depends for its force and value upon one of the words used. Exegetical study of Scriptures in the original language is a study of words. It is to one end that the concept may be gained from words rather rather than that unimportant words present a concept…the Bible, when referring to its message, never calls attention to a mere concept; it rather speaks its message as committed to man in the words which the Holy Spirit teaches”. (Systematic Theology, Vol 1, pg 69).
Even Jesus emphasized the importance of words. How many times did he address his examiners with ‘it is written’.
Dave, something else to consider regarding the significance of words.
Then God said, let there be light; and there was light (Genesis 1:3)
The God said, let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:26)
The Lord appeared to Abram and said, ‘to your descendents I will give this land (Genesis 12:7)
Then God spoke all these words [to Moses], saying….(Exodus 20:1).
Think about that. When God gave the Law to the people, he did not provide them with a concept but with clear instruction concerning His requirements through the use of words.
Okay, we’re dealing with different issues here. Allow me to try to break them up. First, the extent of inspiration. Dave, you wrote:
For example, if Luke (who claims investigation, not inspiration) accurately reports an event, does it need to be inspired? Let’s say Luke spoke with Mary, other family members and disciples and they all told him Jesus was about thirty years old when he started his ministry. So Luke reports that in 3:23. What does inspiration add to Luke’s accurate report?
Explain why this needs to be inspired – ” When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas…”
I see your point, but I’m not sure how it’s helpful. Are you suggesting that we should try to determine what passages are inspired and which ones are not? Couldn’t we equally ask, “Was Jesus’ divine nature necessary when he ate breakfast? Explain to me why he had to be divine when he picked something out of his teeth?” The mundane aspects of his life don’t alter his divine nature, they just show very starkly his human nature. We don’t try to sort out which times Jesus was divine and which ones he was human. And I think the same can be said about the Bible. The passages to which you refer simply show very clearly the human aspect of the Word. But such mundane passages don’t call into question the inspiration of the Bible. I don’t think we should—or can—seek to determine the degree of inspiration for each passage.
Next, the nature of inspiration. (Sorry for the multiple posts, but I thought this might be easier.) Dave, I don’t think you’re being completely fair in defining the options. You wrote:
If the writer is constrained to using only one specific word in a given place, then the writer has no freedom and is simply taking dictation. The distinction made by VP (verbal plenary) advocates strikes me as lip service only. If the writers don’t contribute the words what do they contribute? Ink? VP would say style, but style is based on word choice and usage.
But you’re attributing something to this view that I don’t hear anyone saying. Where has anyone said that God constrains the writer to only one specific word? Just because God ensures the accuracy of each word doesn’t mean that he dictates each word. You’re allowing no nuance at all between the two extremes. To me this is a straw man of the verbal theory. I don’t know of anyone who would holds the theory who would agree with this. Just because an editor makes a writer change a word, does that mean the editor is dictating the article?
You go on:
As I understand it, VP seems to say that inspiration needs to create accuracy of each word. I would say inspiration need only ensure accuracy of the concept being communicated.
Again, I haven’t read where anyone claims that inspiration needs to create accuracy. You would be right in calling this dictation. But now you’re creating a false dilemma. We’re both talking about ensuring accuracy, just to a different extent. I see the different views as: ensuring the accuracy of the concept (with the possibility of error as long as the concept is accurately conveyed); or ensuring the accuracy of the communication (including the wording used).
I would ask: If God can ensure the accuracy of the concepts conveyed in Scripture, why couldn’t he ensure the accuracy of the wording used to convey that concept? And if you think this necessitates constraining the writer to only one specific word, just look at the incredible diversity we have in translational choices! The translators don’t feel constrained to use one specific English word. Yet they are still very determined that the words they choose accurately convey the meaning of the original. Eugene Peterson exercised great freedom in The Message, yet still sought to convey the meaning without allowing error to creep in.
–cont.
–cont.
If I asked my wife to convey a message, I would essentially have two choices. Either dictate word for word what I want her to say. Or allow her to freely convey the basic concept. But the Holy Spirit is not bound to the same options that I am. He can inspire fallible human authors to write holy scriptures. We may not be completely sure how he does that, and we can discuss and debate the implications. But we cannot insist that he operate under the same limitations that we do. If God can inspire humans to write scripture, why would he be limited to ensuring they convey just the concept accurately enough but with possibly erroneous wording or details?
What do the Little Mermaid, postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida, and the Bible all have in common?
For anyone interested, I just posted a new blog post, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Hermeneutics: A Postmodern Take on Biblical Historiography”
(Just click the hyperlink in my name)
I’d be interested if anyone wanted to comment!
Lastly, the necessity of a completely infallible Scripture. Dave, you wrote:
“How can the final product be infallible or authoritative if there was no divine control over the actual composition?”
If scripture (or a person) accurately communicates God’s intent, it is infallible on the basis of accuracy and authoritative because of content, even if not inspired. (Not as clear as I’d like, but maybe I can elaborate later)
But if you don’t have an inspired, infallible (inerrant) Scripture as a guide, how do you know what does and does not communicate God’s intent? Unless you have a reliable standard, you have no way of knowing if this scripture or person is conveying God’s intent. You can trust your instinct, but that’s not always a reliable guide. How do you know what’s straight if you don’t have a reliable level?
I have no problem at all with divine control to ensure accuracy, I just question whether it needs to determine every word, which verbal requires.
But, to go back to a question from the beginning of this thread, if this alleged Divine Scripture contains error, why should I assume anything in it is a source of truth or standard for faith? At least any more than any other book out there? If the Bible can’t keep the little things error-free, why should I believe that the big concepts are error-free? (And if you agree that the Bible is free from erroneous wording, that’s VP!)
To me, VP inerrancy places it’s faith in the words themselves, not in the power of the Spirit that brings those words to life.
Again, this is a false dilemma. Why do we have to choose between the Spirit and the words? (Remember John 6:63.) Your statement sounds a lot likely the old liberal argument that the Bible isn’t the Word of God, but that if God illuminates some passage to you then it “becomes” the Word of God to you. That sounds nice, but it’s pretty ethereal. And it leaves us again with no reliable source or guide. Of course we don’t want to diminish the place of the Spirit in our lives, but shouldn’t we also treasure and study the words through which He communicated His truth to us?
–cont.
–cont.
That’s because the Holy Spirit’s power can operate in spite of imperfection.
As I said earlier, God’s ability to communicate is not held hostage to inerrancy or verbal plenary inspiration. Or to put it another way, error cannot veto God’s purpose.
I don’t think anyone would deny that God can work through us even though we make mistakes. But none of us are setting ourselves up as the source of truth and standard of faith. And, with all due respect to the KJV, it was only that source and standard as it accurately translated the original. (There are very serious reasons why we don’t accord the same authority to one individual translation that we do to the original texts.) This all goes back to intent, as you’ve pointed out previously. Did God intend to give us such a source of truth and standard for faith? And if so, did He intend to give us a source of truth that also contained error? Why would He? And if God’s communication contains error, how can we rely on it and in what way can it be authoritative?
I don’t see the problem in believing that God chose to communicate through human authors by means of His inspiration resulting in writing that is both human and divine. And if He did actually do that, it seems natural that He would ensure the complete accuracy of what was communicated. I fail to see where such a belief is unwieldy or strains credulity. It can be discussed at great length and its implications can be explored. But it doesn’t require me to jump through logical hoops or dance around challenges. To me, it seems to best fit what the Scripture claims about itself, what the early church taught and how the early church used the Scriptures.
I apologize to everyone for my long, multiple posts. Maybe this isn’t the best medium for me. Or maybe I just need to learn to be more disciplined in my writing.
I’d say that in a sense, the Holy Spirit IS ethereal, and the Spirit is our guide. That’s what bugs me about the VPI view- it seems to discount the role of the Spirit to some extent. As I said, the Spirit operated through an errant KJV for some 400 years, and changed the world.
Back to earlier point, if God inspires every word then does Paul express his own opinion, and if so, in what sense is it authoritative? And that’s why I wonder about the level of inspiration in various places.
So, now that we’ve reestablished the meaning of VP:
… “I wish all men were as I am…”
Paul’s opinion or not?
Inspired (meaning “from God”, “God-breathed”), carrying God’s authority, or not?
Not sure I agree with that. Maybe there could be a better analogy – a teacher guiding a student, a proofreader looking over a paper… I’ll think about it.
And this is why I see VPI as (possibly) eisegesis – starting with the NEED instead of the text – we must have, therefore it is.
That thinking leads to a fundamentalism where questions cannot be asked.
Curt, you posted while I typed, so I responded to stuff you already responded to. Or something like that. :^)
I appreciate your reasoning and I don’t mind the long posts, I hope CMP can afford the bandwidth (grin).
Gotta run, will try to check back in later.
Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would come and guide His followers into all truth. Presumably, that doesn’t mean only when they were writing, so if the Spirit had guided them previously then they already knew truth accurately when they sat down to write. There doesn’t need to be special inspiration at the time of writing, and none of the NT authors reported being aware of any.
J. Rodman Williams has a 7-part online essay on this:
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/DrWilliams/BK_Scripture_ch01.aspx
Wow, nobody has really answered the original questio nyet but veered off on many different topics instead.
I thought JP Holding handled this pretty well at his Tektonics site. He goes beyond the semi-lame answer Haneegraaf gives.
http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby.html
He basically points to “high priest” being taken as “great priest”, since the office of high priest did not exist back then. So instead, it is the “renowned priest” Abiathar that Jesus is using to help make the greater point in his sentence – that nobody would have been a better judge of the law, but even he cut David some slack.
All,
Just to say thank you for this facinating discussion.
Just one quick query regarding Daves posts in reference to seeming mundane stuff by Paul …
Can we view the content of the books as not necessarily being the inherrent and infallible truth but rather that the record of what is being written is without error and true … does that help?
We read Judas hung himself … we don’t believe it was God’s will but that it is a true record. We read Satans words to Jesus … we don’t believe the Holy Spirit inspired Satan but that the record of what is said is true.
We read Pauls human letters but believe that naturallysupernaturally God enabled all that he wished to communicate to the church then and to us now … to be communicated and recorded … so that just as Jesus was truely human (not just a pretend human) & truely divine … so the words and letter that was composed reflect a truely human Paul but communicate truely divine truths.
Not sure if that helps or obsures. Like all of you I’m trying to get my head around a lot of stuff being shortly to join the Lisa ranks though in Ireland.
Best wishes,
Keith
ps I do hope the conversation will continue
regards,
Keith
Has anybody read Ben Witherington II’s book “The Living Word of God – Rethinking the Theology of the Bible”.
Chapter 3 of that book interacts at length with Peter Enns’ book “Inspiration and Incarnation”. Enns agrees with more recent understandings of the Bible and inerrancy / infallibility that God accomodated His word to human beings and through human beings. However, Enns builds on this premise to argue that God may have allowed the writers to say things that may not actually be true, but which communicated a true message.
Witherington is sympathetic to Enns’ concerns, and agrees with him to some extent, but finds in the end that Enns’ approach ulitmately undermines scripture. Witherington finds that Enns’ book comes across as “a plea to become agnostic about the importance of the historical substance of the text”.
Both Enns and Witherington deal with the Abiathar issue. BWII in c. 3 of his book. BWIII mentions 3 issues that help explain things: (1) the importance of Abiathar, (2) the translational possibilities of the Greek preposition “epi”, and (3) textual differences in manuscripts.
Enns, on his blog, raises a good point: “If Scripture is God’s revealed truth, consistent in all its parts, profitable for all sorts of correction, reproof, etc., is there really room for tensions and paradoxes of any sort at all? What purpose do these tensions and paradoxes have in a Bible that is, according to Waltke’s own standard, “consistent in all its parts?”
I didn’t read all the arguments above, but have heard this sort of arguments for years. If I can change the focus somewhat, there is a story that bothers me. God gave the 10 commandments to Moses, 2 of which were, thou shall not kill, and another, thou shall not steal. But then a few years later he has his children kill Cannanites and steal their land. To me this is a more serious discrepancy than who was in charge at what time. Did God change his mind about his own rules?? jlaney
[…] some links to read On Bible Errors and Contradictions: A Defense of Sacred Scripture as Inerrant Parchment and Pen A Possible Error in the Bible? Does the Bible contain errors, contradictions, or discrepancies? __________________ To view […]
The best case for bible errency can be found at this link.
http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf
The best case for the correct time line to the death and resurrection can also be found at that same link.
If we are to live by every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. What will we as Christian do when we Hear God’s voice and it contradicts the bible?
Check the link to see why this prophecy is fulfilled today.
Jeremiah 16: 19-20 FULFILLED
19 O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction, The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say, “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and unprofitable things.” 20 Will a man make gods for himself, Which are not gods?
This next prophecy will reach personal fulfillment with you when you find what the Christian world is missing that divides them.
4. All truth is in God, and I bear witness unto the truth. I am the true Rock, and on this Rock do I build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, and out of this Rock shall flow rivers of living water to give life to the peoples of the earth. 5. Ye are my chosen twelve. In me, the Head and Corner stone, are the twelve foundations of my house builded on the rock, and on you in me shall my Church be built, and in truth and righteousness shall my Church be established. 6. And ye shall sit on twelve thrones and send forth light and truth to all the twelve tribes of Israel after the Spirit, and I will be with you, even unto the end of the world. 7. But there shall arise after you, men of perverse minds who shall through ignorance or through craft, suppress many things which I have spoken unto you, and lay to me things which I never taught, sowing tares among the good wheat which I have given you to sow in the world. 8. Then shall the truth of God endure the contradiction of sinners, for thus it hath been, and thus it will be. But the time cometh when the things which they have hidden shall be revealed and made known, and the truth shall make free those which were bound.
This is a small piece of what is missing.. look to find the rest within you.
God Bless
So when the bible refers to a bat as a bird, we pretend God knows the difference, but the people of the age wouldn’t, couldn’t understand how a mammal could fly, so …………..excuse the errors and pass the wine?
How about the old book being a guide on how we can better live our lives. Seeing how most people no longer beat their slaves, trade their wives, stone their children for misbehaving, or follow the strict Jewish diet found on so many of the pages?
Oldman, regarding the bird/bat thing, the ancients just classified according to a different standard. We base “mammal” on furry, warm blooded, live birth (well, except for the platypus and a few other egg-layers) and lactating, so we call a bat a mammal. They based “bird” on”it flies.” Not an error, just a different method. Classification is not some a science we’ve discovered, but something we’ve kind of made up. It’s not as if one method is right and one is wrong according to some universal standard.
They didn’t refer to non-flight birds as birds? Of course they did. My point is either the bible is the word of God or it isn’t. There are mistakes in the bible that God wouldn’t have made. Another example is in Genesis, where the sun and stars are referred to as two separate and distinct creations. God would have know the sun is a star. It is the fact that in all the cases where information not known to the locals, but known to the creator, would be proof of Gods existence, the bible got it wrong.
One of the greatest lies to ever manifest in Christian tradition is to call the BIBLE the word of God. In truth this is a book containing a collection of Books that record the words spoken by God and God’s interaction with man. It’s not every word that proceeded from the mouth of God. So to limit your understanding of God to Catholic Doctrine would be to make a false God cutting you off from actually hearing God’s voice as God’s children do.
For the best evidence of bible Error.. see the time line at this link.
http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/the%20death%20and%20resurrection.pdf
Simple Error to point out. Both Matthew and Luke illustrate the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and Cleansing of the temple on the same day. Mark however illustrates the cleansing of the temple the day after the Triumphal entry.
For Man to state that the apostle was mearly recalling the Event at it happend is to say that it was not inspired by the holy Spirit since the Holy spirit brings to rememberance all truth.
Truth is that this event can only happen on a single day if it occured only one time.
The big question to ask is why does the Gospel of John place the cleansing of the temple event 3 years ealier during the first passover of Christ’s ministry when Christ was 60 miles north of Jerusalem feeding the mulititude near the sea of galilee?
Oldman, I was just pointing out that the bat example is not a very good argument.
Sorry, but you are wrong about the classification of animals as something we just made up. It is a system that represents the differences in the various species of animals. The differences are real, some animals are more closely related than others. Only the truly ignorant would say a bat is more like a bird than it is a mouse.
In this example the bible is telling people what animals to eat and which ones not to eat according to the world of God. It is a glaring mistake, but as the above post points out not the only one.
So the classification of animals is a universal truth that we discovered, not invented, kinda like mathmatics? C’mon, now.
Classification is entirely our own creation. Let’s say I wanted to categorize people. I could group them by age or gender or height or language, hair color, eye color or whether they’re Cubs fans or White Sox fans. Or anything else.
I could group animals by whether they have teeth (lions, snakes, sharks) or don’t have teeth (chickens, turtles, jellyfish). Or land animals (ferrets, lizards) and marine animals (whales, seahorses). Or whether they can fly (dragonflies, ducks, bats) or not (nightcrawlers, rabbits). All these are perfectly valid categories, every bit as valid as standard biological categories, just created for a different purpose.
You say “Only the truly ignorant would say a bat is more like a bird than it is a mouse.” So are you saying the ancients were too dumb to see that a bat resembles a mouse? These people who could read and write? Don’t forget, this was written by people who had been living in Egypt, a culture whose accomplishments are still impressive today. And we’re not talking rocket science, we’re talking about simple observation. To support your point, you must claim they were so unobservant they never noticed the difference between feathers and hair. And that a bat’s wing has no feathers at all! Boy, that would be stupid people!
As I see it, the only options for explaining the bird/bat thing are either stupid (truly ignorant) people or a different basis for classification.
re oldman’s posts 86 & 89, “They didn’t refer to non-flight birds as birds? Of course they did.”
How about an equally unsupported, “Of course they didn’t”? Unless you have some documentary or linguistice evidence to support your point, I’m unconvinced.
Linnean classification is, obviously, a recent development and our present day scientific definition of what a “bird” was did not exist either. Classification systems of semitic peoples were based on function or form. In this case, the Hebrew word ‘owph which is translated as “birds” means merely “owner of a wing”, and is derived from a root word which means to cover or to fly. Consequently the category of ‘owph includes flying things such as birds, bats, and certain insects. Even today we still classify some things by form or function or even location rather than on inherent biological traits. For example, modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). (Finally, after more than a decade, my university class in ecology has come in handy).
regards,
#John
Hey John,
I was wondering if there was a linguistic element to this, but hadn’t had a chance to look it up. Thanks!
The information at the link is the difinitive evidence needed to illustrate that the 4 bible gospels we have in the bible today came from one written gospel source.
http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/diffinitive%20evidence%20the%204%20gospels%20came%20from%20one%20original%20source.pdf
The true Gospel will only come from the mouth of God through those who believe and obey to judge rightously.
God Bless
Please read Leviticus Chapter 11 verses13-20. This is the Lord speaking to Moses and AAron, about which fowl to eat and which to avoid.
Yes, you can group snakes and chickens together if you want to, but the connection is very thin. The creator knows better. You should too.
Our church has in its staement of faith that it believes in the inerrancy of scripture as in the original autographs which by implication means that the Bible translation we use today is not inerrant. Ive lost count of the number of times our pastor has held up the Bible in church waved it around and declared we believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Ive always wondered who the “we” is he is referring to
For an interesting list google 101 contradictions in the bible produced by a muslim. I believe someone has done a repsonse to it. Ive gone through most and without too much bother (and I am not a great bible scholar) saw the ridiculous ness of some of the supposed contradictions. Others do however make you think about what “inerrancy” and “inspiration” mean.
Love reading different peoples views in the search for truth
Fish, actually by implication the copies are inerrant. Scripture is inerrant because it is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). The text is inspired by God, which by extension applies to the copies.
199. Lisa Robinson on 20 Oct 2009 at 7:52 pm #
Fish, actually by implication the copies are inerrant. Scripture is inerrant because it is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). The text is inspired by God, which by extension applies to the copies.
Lisa:
Here is the ETS doctrinal statement:
Can you name any officer or member of the Evangelical Theological Society or any professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who claims or says that the ETS doctrinal statement re: inerrancy implies that the copies are inerrant?
Can you refer me to a doctrinal statement on inerrancy by an official church or organization that claims that the copies by implication or by extension are also inerrant?