kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) (01/04/90)
Having followed the `inconsistency' thread, it seems clear that the battle lines are drawn along the Inerrantist/non-Inerrantist border. I've rarely heard it claimed that the Scriptures that have survived are inerrant, and usually claims to perfection are reserved to the original manuscripts. (I personally don't find inerrancy of the autographs to be worth any time whatsoever -- regardless of whether the idea is true, it does not help us any and seems quite useless.) But the `No Contradiction' group here seems to be insisting that the Bible as it is now is inerrant (else it wouldn't matter if there were some trouble spots). Disregarding the consistency problems of the Scriptures as we have them (which can be interpreted away, if the interpretations often involve astounding feats of mental gymnastics), the simple fact that there are lots of disagreeing manuscripts seems to doom inerrancy for the Scriptures-as- we-have-them. Most modern translations have numerous footnotes at the bottom which give alternate readings from the various manuscripts; so just *which* one of these is the Right One (tm)? And on the off chance that somebody chooses to exalt one of the extant English translations as perfect (a claim which _cannot_ have any support from Scripture because none of the English translations is mentioned in the Bible), we are still left with the things in Scripture that are just plain wrong. Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 both refer to the `hare' as a ruminant (ie, an animal that chews cud). Unfortunately, this is not true: the hare is not a ruminant. [ If your favorite translation says `rabbit' instead of `hare', this still applies. ] Now, it is true that the hare _looks_ sorta like it is chewing cud, but so what? Surely God can tell whether a hare is a ruminant or not -- why then does the Bible get it wrong? Note that I am not saying God was incapable of giving us flawless Scriptures; I am only pointing out that he apparently decided not to, for whatever reasons. Far be it from me to second-guess God's decisions on delivering us the Bible. (Note that, having read all the verses which are usually used to claim that Scripture says it is perfect, I find that interpretation often strained: I do not believe that the Bible claims to be perfect, and therefore I am not contradicting it.) Do any of the inerrantists wish to comment? (In the event you don't like my example, I can dig up more.) [ I suppose it is possible that somebody wants to claim that hares _were_ ruminants then, but aren't now. Well, it will fix inerrancy of the autographs but it will not do anything for the Scriptures as we have them now; if facts reported in the Scriptures can go out of date, then they can hardly be considered reliable. ] kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be simple and dignified." -- Diogenes
paulj@b8.ingr.com (Joey Paul x4129 ) (01/07/90)
kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie @ U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742) writes: [various text deleted] > Note that I am not saying God was incapable of giving us flawless > Scriptures; I am only pointing out that he apparently decided not to, for > whatever reasons. Far be it from me to second-guess God's decisions on > delivering us the Bible. (Note that, having read all the verses which No, you're saying he gives us flawed, unreliable words to base our beliefs on, sort of a "practical joke" type of guy? Kinda like me telling my 3 yr old son, "Go ahead and stick your finger in the light socket, it won't hurt". In other words, 2 Timothy 3:16,17 doesn't really mean what it says, just one of God's jokes on the human race. > are usually used to claim that Scripture says it is perfect, I find that > interpretation often strained: I do not believe that the Bible claims to > be perfect, and therefore I am not contradicting it.) So, a question is posed to all the net-theologians - which parts of scripture do you accept as the Word of God (because they are "correct") and which parts do you reject (because they are "incorrect")? What criteria do you use to determine inspired words of God vs. questionable words of men? Since there are so many different versions ( or should we say PERversions) which one do you feel is the "real" Bible, or do they all fit this description, or maybe we don't even have the real one, just a book called the Bible that contains parts of the Word of God? Sheesh, and thought I had finally found something I could rely on...but who'd walk across a bridge with so many cracks and holes in it? -- . | Joey Paul (205) 730-4129 . . "Ye must be born again." | uunet!ingr!dj4104!paulj (UUCP) . . | dj4104!paulj@ingr.com (INTERNET). [This one comes near the border of personal attack... I'm concerned that you're so busy with the sarcasm that you might not have had a chance to think about what was being said. The situation Darren describes is a flaw only if you assume that Scripture is intended to contain information and instructions that are unambiguous, and is intended to be used without any further analysis. Many Christians believe that God -- for reasons known only to himself -- preferred not to give us all the answers, but insists that we put a certain amount of work into the process ourselves. I understand the disadvantage of this view: it means that we can't be confident that we've got The Answer. But there are some of us who think God may prefer it that way. Note that the choices for Scripture are not limited to inerrancy or worthlessness. A middle position says - on historical matters it is a reliable but human witness. There are multiple accounts of many events partly so we can see the amount of variation present among the witnesses. - it contains writings from many perspectives, so that we can see the variety of possible responses to God's actions. II Tim 3:16-17 implies inerrancy only when combined with the assumption that "useful" means inerrant. I understand that attractiveness of that assumption, but it would help dialog if you realized that not everyone finds it equally attractive. --clh]
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (01/15/90)
>In other words, 2 Timothy 3:16,17 doesn't really mean what it says, just one >of God's jokes on the human race. And what does it say? It says that scripture-- in this case, the OT, and perhaps even including all of the Septuagint-- is something that all christians should read, and that there is good stuff in it. >So, a question is posed to all the net-theologians - which parts of scripture >do you accept as the Word of God (because they are "correct") and which parts >do you reject (because they are "incorrect")? What criteria do you use to >determine inspired words of God vs. questionable words of men? This is a rather "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of question. It presumes that this sort of judgement is how you should apporach scripture. If you ignore a certain modernist streak which takes its primary authority from outside of scripture, it appears that people do not disagree over interpretation because one person claims that some scripture is in error. It's interesting that the most commonly cited contradictions on scripture have no real doctrinal importance. Inerrancy is most commonly a sign of a certain type of interpretation, rather than a cause of that interpretation. >Sheesh, and thought I had finally found something I could rely on...but who'd >walk across a bridge with so many cracks and holes in it? This is something that I have observed among all sorts of people in religious discussion: this emphasis on certainty as a first principle. This seems to me to be a trap. God doesn't have to cooperate with every demand; in this case, indeed, it's quite clear that he has NOT cooperated. The texts of the NT which we have do vary, in some cases considerably. Argument over what these texts do mean has been disputed from the beginning of recorded theology. Belief that one can pick up the bible and know with surety what it is telling you is a dangerous self-delusion; it substitutes one's own interpretation of the bible for the bible itself. As far as certainty is concerned, lots of us are able to continue in the faith without all these guarantees of certainty. I think this is the strongest argument against this supposed need for certainty. -- C. Wingate + "Glorious now behold him arise, + King and God and Sacrifice; mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Heav'n sings alleluia: mimsy!mangoe + Alleluia the earth replies."
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (01/16/90)
In article <Jan.6.21.49.54.1990.6963@athos.rutgers.edu>, paulj@b8.ingr.com (Joey Paul x4129 ) writes: The text: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, [17] so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Tim 3:16-17 NIV) Our moderator writes: > II Tim 3:16-17 implies inerrancy only when combined with the assumption > that "useful" means inerrant. The belief in inerrancy, I believe, does not hinge on the word 'useful' but rather the fact that Paul here describes all Scripture as 'God-breathed'. The question then to be examined is what does the text mean when it says 'God-breathed'. The second text most often used as a defense for inerrancy is 2 Peter 1:20-21. "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. [21] For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Often pointed out is that 'prophecy' and 'prophet' are not restricted to mean simply 'predictions about the future' but any 'speaking forth' from God. Similar to this passage we find in Hebrews 1:1: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, [2] but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" Paul speaks of the 'word of the prophets' as something the believers posessed in 2 Peter 1:19 and then heads into the 1:20-21 text cited above. Therefore, I believe when Paul states that all Scripture is 'God-breathed', he is stating the God actually 'spoke through' the human authors as they penned Scripture. This does not mean God 'dictated' Scripture in such a way that the human author's writing style was muffled; but rather that the original texts themselves take on the same characteristics as the source. I just finished a book by the founder of the largest inter-denominational Bible Study in the world (Bible Study Fellowship, A Wetherel Johnson). She mentioned in this book that there was a conference earlier in the 1980s called 'The Conference on Biblical Inerrancy' (or similar) in which she was invited to sit on the board of this conference for Bible scholars. Does anyone have a copy of the paper which was produced as a result of this conference? If not, I'll see if I can come up with a copy. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
nunes@cs.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) (01/18/90)
[This is a comment on the discussion of II Tim 3:16-17 as support for inerrancy. The following bracketed comment is present in the posting itself. --clh] [My apologies for once again interfering in one of your discussions, but ...] In my opinion there seems to be little point in using comments from a text as evidence for the accuracy of that text (i.e. Paul could be *wrong* about the Scriptures being God-inspired). [I agree that one can't use a text's claims to inerrancy alone as proof. On the other hand, it seems at least useful to know what the Biblical authors thought about the authority of the Bible. If they explicitly rejected inerrancy, that would seem to be pretty convincing. If they claim it, this may tend to narrow one's choices, since it favors rejecting the Bible completely as an authoritative document or accepting the claim of inerrancy. I agree that it doesn't completely rule out an intermediate view, but at the very least it seems an argument against it. --clh]
kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) (02/05/90)
I received both followups and mail in response to my last article, and in the main they overlapped. The unanimous opinion of my respondents was that Inerrancy was claimed only for the autographs, with which I have no quarrel (though I don't find a flawed copy of an inerrant document significantly different than an inerrant copy of a flawed document). What I do not understand is the great amount of effort and typing that went into followup articles in the "contradictions" thread. If we have flawed copies, then it should hardly be astonishing that difficulties crop up in places -- what is so important about them? Can any of the people who tried to explain away contradictions say _why_ they were doing so? Does any important doctrine rest on the passages in question? If not, why spend so much time on it? Additionally, all but one of my respondents mentioned that rabbits exhibit coprophragy, with varying opinions of this explanation. However, in the absence of any solid references, I find the supposed analogue to rumination strained at best. And the rabbits serve as a nice example for my actual point: who cares? Is any important doctrine going to be overturned if rabbits _don't_ chew the cud, and this is a (translation|copying) error? The only reason I can see to bother about this is because one believes the current copies are inerrant -- but virtutally everyone has distanced themselves from that position. Does anybody reading this believe that the current editions are inerrant? If not, can anyone who argued against the presence of contradictions explain why it matters? (I can understand if you actually don't think there are contradictions, but I'm not sure I understand the convoluted explanations which appeared -- it seemed to be an effort to avoid contradictions, which I do not understand.) kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." -- Indian proverb
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (02/07/90)
In article <Feb.5.04.04.52.1990.25405@athos.rutgers.edu>, kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > What I do not understand is the great amount of effort and typing that went > into followup articles in the "contradictions" thread. If we have flawed > copies, then it should hardly be astonishing that difficulties crop up in > places -- what is so important about them? Can any of the people who tried > to explain away contradictions say _why_ they were doing so? Does any > important doctrine rest on the passages in question? If not, why spend so > much time on it? I was not one of the ones who participated in the "contradictions thread" although time permitting, I would have liked to. Being one who identifies with the inerrantist's position, I feel I might be able to answer some of these questions. I believe that the "errors" in the copies we have today have to do with minor things such as an inverted word order. Although, such a thing can significantly change the meaning of a passage, when carefully compared with other non-controversial passages, and other copies of the text, we can usually conclude the correct word order. The "contradictions" which you brought up, probably crossed the minor error line and fell into the "major" flub up category. There is a big difference in some peoples minds between an inverted word order (attributed to a tired scribe's mistake) versus an entire story being "incorrect" (e.g. the alleged discrepancy concerning Judas' death). One apologetic put it this way: [Begin quote] "A.T. Robertson, the great Greek scholar, said: 'There are some 8000 manuscripts of the Latin and at least 1000 of the other early versions. Add over 4000 Greek manuscripts and we have 13,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament portions.' And all of them essentially agree...Textual scholars have found some human errata because a scribe copied a letter wrong, or inverted a word order. But this is the case in less than one word in a thousand. In fact, in the Old Testament, only one out of every 1580 words vary with another manuscript. Henry M. Morris said, "Although there are varying readings in the manuscripts, over 99% are nothing more than variations in spelling." [End quote] We can see that these admitted errors are of a different nature than those which allegedly display human ignorance concerning the account of someone's death. If all Scripture is truly God breathed, then the inerrantist can put up with minor copying mistakes, but not "bogus stories" which have their genesis in human ignorance. Such stories would no longer have their origin in "men moved by the Holy Spirit". (By the way, thank you for all that responded concerning the Chicago Confernce on Biblical Inerrancy. I have sent away for a copy of the entire paper which was the end product of this conference. I may share relevant portions of the paper if this subject is still lingering around by the time it arrives in the mail.) -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 [If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might find it useful to look through a few pages of a critical edition of the Greek NT. The vast majority of differences are in fact slight changes in word order, different pronouns, etc. It's pretty unusual to find textual issues that have any serious implications. However the Robinson question perhaps overstates things. 13,000 manuscripts are sort of irrelevant, since many of those are late manuscripts that have no real independent value. (In fact last time I heard there were now so many manuscripts that only computer scanning gave any hope of allowing even a cursory examination of all of them.) However I think Darren's point was one of principle. If you think it's good enough to have manuscripts that are substantially OK, but don't demand to know the precise Greek wording, complete with word order, why not accept a similar compromise on the level of higher criticism? How about someone who says that the Bible isn't inerrant in principle, but any errors or contradictions are on issues of no significance? --clh]
smith_c@gatech.edu (02/07/90)
In article <Jan.6.21.49.54.1990.6963@athos.rutgers.edu>, paulj@b8.ingr.com (Joey Paul x4129 ) writes: > kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie @ U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742) writes: > > [various text deleted] > > So, a question is posed to all the net-theologians - which parts of scripture > do you accept as the Word of God (because they are "correct") and which parts > do you reject (because they are "incorrect")? What criteria do you use to > determine inspired words of God vs. questionable words of men? Since there > are so many different versions ( or should we say PERversions) which one do > you feel is the "real" Bible, or do they all fit this description, or maybe > we don't even have the real one, just a book called the Bible that contains > parts of the Word of God? Sheesh, and thought I had finally found something > I could rely on...but who'd walk across a bridge with so many cracks and > holes in it? The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. As a history book, I'd be reluctant to cross its bridge as it has a great many cracks and holes. If you regard the Bible as basically a history book with many theological comments interwoven into the text, then it should be condemned as unsafe to cross. However, if you regard the Bible as a textbook of faith with history interwoven into the Message, then the Bible is as sturdy a bridge as you'd ever care to cross. The Bible is a theology textbook with history interwoven into the text. I'm perfectly content regarding the Bible as theologically inerrant. Now, as for which parts of the Bible I reject as incorrect and which I accept as correct: Evil men speak incorrect things often interwoven with correct things. Good men speak incorrect things often interwoven with correct things. Vice versa. What criteria, then, do I use to determine inspired words of God versus questionable words of men? Whenever the Prophets say, "Thus says the Lord...." is the first criteria for determining the inspired word of God versus questionable words of men. Repentence is also a good clue; they might not get it right at first but by the end of the story they know what's right and what's wrong. > -- > . | Joey Paul (205) 730-4129 . > . "Ye must be born again." | uunet!ingr!dj4104!paulj (UUCP) . OFM comments: > [This one comes near the border of personal attack... I'm concerned > that you're so busy with the sarcasm that you might not have had a > chance to think about what was being said. The situation Darren > describes is a flaw only if you assume that Scripture is intended to > contain information and instructions that are unambiguous, and is > intended to be used without any further analysis. Many Christians > believe that God -- for reasons known only to himself -- preferred not > to give us all the answers, but insists that we put a certain amount > of work into the process ourselves. I understand the disadvantage of > this view: it means that we can't be confident that we've got The > Answer. But there are some of us who think God may prefer it that > way. Note that the choices for Scripture are not limited to inerrancy > or worthlessness. I firmly believe that God values the process by which we come to know him. The Scriptures do not contain rules of the Pascal programming format: If A = true then do etc. Else etc. You've got to live with people. In "Diary of a Country Priest" an elderly monsignor tells our young priest that he isn't very popular in some circles, probably because "I haven't got a pet theory on how to save people, or I've lost it in one of my pockets." I don't think God has a pet theory for saving people either; salvation is a continuous process, a continuous lifelong process. You can't expect to make people happy in one wretched half-hour a week, the monsignor said. You can't just flip through the Bible one day and expect to learn "The Meaning of Life." It takes work, patience, a little humor, and lots of love to discovering the meaning of life; the Bible is a path not a destination. -- A preachy, _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // nanovx!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (02/09/90)
In article <Feb.7.03.46.18.1990.18353@athos.rutgers.edu>, ncsatl!smith_c@gatech.edu writes: [1] [2] > The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. As a history book, I'd be reluctant to > cross its bridge as it has a great many cracks and holes. These two sentences seem to contradict each other (although this may be due to my flawed understanding of what the writer really means by the first sentence). Should the words "Some of" precede this first sentence? And of course the second sentence allows me to empathize with Darren Provine who asks some posters to express controversial ideas as opinions rather than as a "given". [3] > I'm perfectly content regarding the Bible as theologically inerrant. [4] > What criteria, then, do I use to determine inspired words of God > versus questionable words of men? Whenever the Prophets say, "Thus says the > Lord...." is the first criteria for determining the inspired word of God versus > questionable words of men. I have the same questions about section [3] and [4] above as I did sections [1] and [2]. When you make the statement number [3], one can only assume that you mean all of the Bible. Then reading through section [4] you clarify your position from one seemingly referring to all of the "theological portions of the Bible" to an astoundingly small percentage of it. I've read a paper on this that a Catholic theologian gave me a while back, and had the same questions then about this position as I do now. I guess I have a semantical objection to statements [1] and [3] given your clarifications provided in [2] and [4]. The aforementioned theologian also made statements similar to [1] and [3] which in my opinion seem in conflict (or at the very least misleading) to what you really believe. I believe that the qualifier "some" would help reduce this conflict. The poster (sorry for the formality but I couldn't tell your name from the posting) then states: > salvation is a continuous process, a continuous lifelong process. There seems to be substantial amount of Scriptural evidence which would show that a person, after trusting in Jesus Christ by faith is saved and justified (past tense). Just a few minutes with a concordance looking up the words "saved" and "justified" will make this evident. The most obvious that comes to mind is the ever famous Eph 2:8,9 "For by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED through faith. It is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Gal 3:24 and Titus 3:7 talk about folks (still alive at the time) who already have been justified. Given you believe that the Bible is theologically inerrant, would the above passages and 1 Cor 6:11 below fall into the seemingly large "exception category?" 1 Cor 6:11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@BGSUOPIE University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403 [I think the distinction he's trying to make is not one of extent but of purpose. That is, he's not proposing that only part of the Bible is authoritative, but rather than there are only certain kinds of questions that you can expect it to answer. --clh]
gilham@neon.stanford.edu (Fred Gilham) (02/12/90)
"The Bible is the inerrant Word of God" -- Is this true? I like to
think that Jesus is the Word of God (the bible tells me this!).
There's a formula I like in dealing with the authority of the bible.
I feel it avoids circularity and finesses most of the questions of
inerrancy well:
The bible is the witness to and derives its authority from Jesus
Christ, who is its source.
It seems to me that it's pretty silly to tell someone to believe in
Jesus because the bible says he is the truth. Rather, the witness of
the bible leads us to know about Jesus, and to come to know him. On
this basis, the bible becomes authoritative AFTER Jesus himself
starts to make headway with us.
It seems to me that questions about inerrancy and such come up because
people are trying to fit the bible into worldly categories of truth.
It's the same sort of thing, in my mind, as scientific creationism.
We try to accept canons of validity based on Positivistic
presuppositions. These presuppositions are simply not compatible with
Christianity, nor are they compatible with things like personality,
moral responsibility, or meaning. However, just because they are
fashionable these days doesn't mean they are right, nor even that they
will continue in fashion forever. It makes a lot more sense to me to
say that I believe in this guy, Jesus, and as a result, I believe in
this book which has a lot of stuff in it that he said.
This does not, of course, minimize the importance of establishing the
things he did say (that is, the issues of canon formation and textual
criticism). I just think we have to fight the right battles. Jesus
is what's important. Everything else is important only in relation to
him.
-Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
[So how do you deal with the OT? --clh]