Scriptural Inerrancy

robert derrick said:

I defy anyone to show a contradiction of Scripture, or an incredulous teaching that can't be true: there will always be a possible explanation and reconciliation of Scripture to counter any charge made by men.

Click to expand...

OK. Matt. 27:9 mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. “This passage is not found in Jeremiah at all but in Zechariah,” says Jerome. Philip Schaff: NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

robert derrick said:

And yes, I do think there are other instances of apostles dropping the ball.

This is called unbelief. If we don not believe all Scripture to be true and righteous altogether, then we are not believing the God of Scripture to be the true God and eternal life.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Scriptures of God by His prophets and apostles are not just the ideas of men, some good, some not:

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

If any man says a prophet or apostle erred, he is saying the Spirit of God erred, since all Scripture is inspired by Him.

The door is then opened to dismiss or change any Scripture we don't like, so that it is no more God by Scripture renewing our mind, but us cherry-picking God's Scriptures to keep our own mind the same.

Rightly dividing the word of truth includes using all Scripture to interpret any single Scripture, that appears to make absolutely no sense, or is ridiculously stupid on the surface.

Even in books of men, there is no common ground of understanding the author, if we are free to throw out parts of the book he authored: we are then destroying the integrity of the book and the author.

I.e. we only believe what we want to believe, and no one, including God, can objectively challenge what we believe.

And so, with Scripture of God it is far better to seek other Scripture to interpret any Scripture that challenges our credulity, and so confirm that the eternal true God knows what He is talking about, and is not stupid.

If Paul or any other prophet is stupid in any verse of Scripture, then he can be stupid in all verses we think are stupid.

Click to expand...

Is the written text made into God? Is there confusion between the printed page and the word made flesh?
Jesus said, 'you have heard said but I say unto you......etc'. In other words, Jesus overrides and gives the written text its place. The written text is subservient to Jesus' clarification....and even in some instances corrects its pronunciations.

I think we should distinguish between theological truth and literal truth here. We don't need to give credence to every sentence of the Bible in order to give credence to the message. Some literary license is allowable. And some room for human error (as in the verse from Matthew I quoted above) is permissible.

RedFan said:

I think we should distinguish between theological truth and literal truth here. We don't need to give credence to every sentence of the Bible in order to give credence to the message. Some literary license is allowable. And some room for human error (as in the verse from Matthew I quoted above) is permissible.

Click to expand...

Do you realize how ludicrous this sounds? The Bible is called "the Word of God", which automatically implies that it is free from any and all errors (as given in the original manuscripts). That is called divine inspiration, and inspiration guarantees inerrancy. Faithful copyists (and the majority of copies) have given us a Bible that is free from errors. So every word is critical. Therefore when the King James translators added words for clarification, they ensure that we would recognize them since they are in italics. On the other hand, all modern bible versions are based upon corrupted texts, and they are therefore unreliable.

Inerrantists like yourself care deeply that their Bible contain no factual inconsistencies whatsoever, even as to the extraneous historical details that have no bearing on the theological message of Scripture. And they are willing to indulge in some rather convoluted explanations to reach their goal. If they cannot reach that goal without total sacrifice of logic, they may plead a copyist’s error as a last resort, but a sacrifice of logic is generally favored over that last resort. Well, I'm just not willing to do that.

Do we really care whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matt. 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10)? Do we really care whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Sam. 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Sam. 21:12)? Do we really care whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chron. 2:13-15) or eight (1 Sam. 16:10-11)? Do we really care whether “Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Kings 8:26) or whether “Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign” (2 Chronicles 22:2)? Why couldn’t two different writers just disagree on these details?

I will concede that with sufficient presumptions and mental machinations indulging the improbable, virtually all of these facial inconsistencies can be harmonized. My question is, why indulge them? The only reason I can see to do so is in order to shore up one’s initial presumption of inerrancy. This approach seems to me to be reasoning the matter backwards. Inerrancy should be a conclusion from the evidence, not an axiom with which to assess the evidence.

Ask an inerrantist whether Jesus sent his apostles out with sandals and staff (Mark 6:8-9) or without them (Matt. 10:10), and the answer will come back “The gospels must have been describing two different missions.” Ask where the “must have” comes from, and the answer ultimately comes back, in words or substance, that the consistency of Scripture is a given.

Even for the inerrantist, it is not crucial to know whether the disciples were sent out with or without sandals for a particular mission. They don’t care which instruction was given, any more than they care whether the law requires driving on the left or on the right side of the road. But they care deeply that only one instruction was given, for otherwise their world would be as chaotic as a world in which the law allowed driving on both sides of the road. If the texts of two gospels give two different answers to any question―even to the issue of apostolic footwear―they care deeply that one of them be explained away. It’s a slippery slope thing with them. It’s a Luke 16:10 thing. Most of us would not be scandalized in the least by one of two gospel authors getting a theologically-irrelevant detail wrong. But the inerrantist demands literal historical truth on every detail, however minor, because for him, there aren’t two gospel authors. There is only one, and He cannot err.

I do not see the point in downplaying the human element like this. I expect theological truth from my Bible, not factual accuracy on minute historical details. And I am not scandalized by inaccuracies as to the latter.

The better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on the inerrancy of the message of a given passage, rather than of the extraneous details with which the passage is adorned. Consider, for example, Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest.” 1 Sam. 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time. In my view, it doesn’t matter whether Jesus got this detail wrong or Mark got it wrong, simply because it doesn’t matter at all―to the message of the gospel story. The point being made by Jesus (or Mark) is theologically sound even if not historically accurate, originally or in the retelling.

robert derrick said:

And yes, I do think there are other instances of apostles dropping the ball.

This is called unbelief. If we don not believe all Scripture to be true and righteous altogether, then we are not believing the God of Scripture to be the true God and eternal life.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Scriptures of God by His prophets and apostles are not just the ideas of men, some good, some not:

And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

If any man says a prophet or apostle erred, he is saying the Spirit of God erred, since all Scripture is inspired by Him.

The door is then opened to dismiss or change any Scripture we don't like, so that it is no more God by Scripture renewing our mind, but us cherry-picking God's Scriptures to keep our own mind the same.

Rightly dividing the word of truth includes using all Scripture to interpret any single Scripture, that appears to make absolutely no sense, or is ridiculously stupid on the surface.

Even in books of men, there is no common ground of understanding the author, if we are free to throw out parts of the book he authored: we are then destroying the integrity of the book and the author.

I.e. we only believe what we want to believe, and no one, including God, can objectively challenge what we believe.

And so, with Scripture of God it is far better to seek other Scripture to interpret any Scripture that challenges our credulity, and so confirm that the eternal true God knows what He is talking about, and is not stupid.

If Paul or any other prophet is stupid in any verse of Scripture, then he can be stupid in all verses we think are stupid.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind Rob, there are many errors in the versions we have. The actual Bible does not exist. Your favored version has deliberate errors, Ps 110:1 an easy to understand prime example.

Taken said:

I don’t find ignoring the literal Scripture being taught.

Click to expand...

I don't advocate ignoring ANY part of Scripture. I simply think that some passages (like Matt. 27:9 mentioned above) are tainted by human error. Doesn't mean we should IGNORE them.