Inerrancy: Friday’s Questions

23 Responses to Inerrancy: Friday’s Questions

1. Jerry Starling says:

   September 16, 2011 at 8:24 am

   The inerrancy debate has made people very sensitive to perceived contradictions.

   For example, I recently had a question in the Question Box page of our church website (www.plymouth-church.com) about the father of Zechariah (the one who was slain between the altar and the sanctuary). There seems to be some confusion in the text itself with some MSS not even listing his Father, but with the Majority giving him the same father as Zechariah the prophet who lived many years later after the Exile.

   Confusion such as my question asker had would not likely occur without the inerrancy debate. This is why I suspect that stressing inerrancy so much may be more harmful than helpful – though I certainly believe the Bible to be reliable for the purpose for which it is given.
   Jerry
2. HistoryGuy says:

   September 16, 2011 at 1:18 pm

   Allow me to say, to no surprise, I agree with Justin Martyr…

   if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself. — Dialogue with Trypho, 65

   I know the difference between incomplete report, perspective, and contradiction. The #1 alleged contradiction that I struggle to understand is the ‘Last Supper/Passover/Crucifixion’ contrasted between the Synoptics (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:1, 7-8) and John’s gospel (John 18:28; 19:14). While the theme is without error [I described this on Tuesday], I have read some 8-10 different explanations of the minute details, and each has its weakness.

   I keep studying and welcome links to articles or books that may help me understand. Feel free to email the info at historyguy007+yahoo.com
3. HistoryGuy says:

   September 16, 2011 at 1:19 pm

   Jerry,
   Good thoughts.
4. abasnar says:

   September 16, 2011 at 1:22 pm

   This, Jerry, has less to do with inerrancy, but with the quality of texts we have at hand. I personally (e.g.) am in favor of the LXX against the Masoretic text, since – as we now know from some finds in Qumran – the LXX has been translated from a different (maybe older) textual familiy than the proto-masoretic text. The reason is pretty simple: The LXX has been confirmed by the Spirit by the use of it in the NT. Otherwise you’ll get into serious trouble when comparing the letter to the Hebrews (!!! – imagine Hebrwes quotes from the Greek LXX) with our Old Testaments that are translated from the Masoretic text.

   Some of these difficulties will never absolutely be solved. But – seriously – these things don’t affect any teaching of the scriptures. But they are used by critcs to question the inerrancy of scriptures and sow doubts into the hearts of our weaker brothers and sisters. I was not a liitle disturbed, that Jay used the same approach in his essay on inerrancy …

   Where I have a major problem with the inerrancy debate is when brothers and sisters object to passages where all MSS agree, simply because they don’t fin our modern world view. “Of course giants are a myth” or “Most certainly demons don’t exist” or “No one can take the six days literally”.

   Or – on a different level – “Paul could not allow women to teach because (a) he was blinded by his own culture, or (b) he accepted the local culture, knowing this is not essential.” These two reasons are presented frequently (even among professors from Christian Universites), and both are an assault on Biblical inerrancy. By doing this, they make the world view of the 21st century the standard by which we are to interpret the scriptures. This is making – watch out! – Satan the interpretor of God’s Word! I cannot and will not ever accept this!

   So, this is not an “academic discourse”, but it goes to the heart of our faith.

   Alexander
5. Jerry Starling says:

   September 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm

   Alexander,

   I agree with you about preferring the LXX over the Masoretic text, though I am not a serious student of the various texts and MSS evidence. I do my studying, for the most part, in the vernacular. Currently, I am using the ESV (English Standard Version), but reference other translations frequently. I have found some few passages in the ESV where I do not like the translation – e.g., the early verses of Hebrews. That almost sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale, though I admit I have not compared it (yet) to the Greek. For the most part, the ESV is more literal than the NIV (for example), but not as stilted as some literal versions (e.g., NASB).

   As far as relating culture to the study of Scripture, there do seem to be some appeals to things that are cultural as reasons for doing (or not doing) certain things. From your earlier comments, I doubt that you and I would agree on all of these, but I do admire your consistency. Sometimes we ignore Biblical culture too much – and read our own Western culture back into the text of Scripture with disastrous results. On the other hand, you make a very valid point that it is easy to allow 21st century culture the standard for our interpretation of Scripture – with even more disastrous results.

   On a personal note, I have wondered where in Austria you live. I passed through Vienna enroute from Ukraine three years ago with an overnight stop with Bart Rybinski who works with Eastern European Mission (for whom I am a Regional Representative). What I saw of Vienna was charming – and made me wish I had more time to spend there.

   Thank you for your comments. You help keep us all more honest by holding us accountable to the text in more than its most literal sense.

   Jerry
6. Terry says:

   September 16, 2011 at 3:11 pm

   I discovered this week that one of the few requirements for membership in the Evangelical Theological Society is affirmation of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as described in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.etsjets.org/about/membership_requirements).
7. Bob Brandon says:

   September 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm

   I prefer to regard the text as inspired for the purposes of the writer and the intended audience in their time and place. Unless the discrepancy alleged relates to the intended meaning, it doesn’t undermine its inspiration. We also have to trust providence as to the texts written and the texts preserved.

   I have never seen an alleged contradiction that even remotely undermined the core gospel. We can confidently rely on God’s expectation that we put him first and foremost and that we put everyone else first and foremost as well.
8. HistoryGuy says:

   September 16, 2011 at 7:00 pm

   All,
   After thinking about my earlier post September 16th, 2011 at 1:18 pm, I don’t just welcome, but rather I desire to know how some of you resolve the alleged contradiction; I would really be thankful and respect any links, books, or personal summaries.
9. Jay Guin says:

   September 16, 2011 at 8:29 pm

   HistoryGuy,

   I suggest you read this post by Ben Witherington on his blog: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/was-lazarus-beloved-disciple.html. The comments and his responses are also good. BW reconciles the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper with John’s by suggesting that the “beloved disciple” was Lazarus, who wrote John’s Gospel. He further proposes that the Gospel shows evidence of having been edited after Lazarus’ death by another hand, likely the hand of John, explaining the tradition that John wrote the gospel.

   As outrageous as that theory sounds at first, BW argues the case well. It’s an interesting read.
10. Terry says:

    September 16, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    HistoryGuy,
    As I understand your question, it concerns the Day of Preparation of the Passover week mentioned in the Gospel of John. I have read that the Day of Preparation referred to Friday (which in the Jewish way of counting time would have started on our Thursday evening). Is that what you are referring to?
11. HistoryGuy says:

    September 17, 2011 at 12:02 am

    Jay,
    Thank you. Only BW is more wordy than I (ha ha). I will read it several times and process it. I have heard others talk about the Apostle John redacting the work of another, so BW’s case is interesting.

    Terry,
    Yes, but it is a bit more complex. It involves the passover, the day, the time, and the crucifixion. Each must be harmonized without creating an inconsistency with something else. Some say the time factor is a Jewish vs. Roman issue, others say it is a scribal error with the gamma and the digamma. Both are part of larger explanations. If you can point me to a link you enjoy, I am happy to read it.
12. HistoryGuy says:

    September 17, 2011 at 12:08 am

    Everyone,
    It seems that Michael Licona is catching flack from Al Mohler and Norm Geisler over Matthew 27 [interpretation, inerrancy, and the Chicago statement]. — very applicable to what we have been discussing!

    http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/michael-licona-responds-to-al-mohler-on-matthew-27/
13. abasnar says:

    September 17, 2011 at 2:48 am

    On a personal note, I have wondered where in Austria you live. I passed through Vienna enroute from Ukraine three years ago with an overnight stop with Bart Rybinski who works with Eastern European Mission (for whom I am a Regional Representative). What I saw of Vienna was charming – and made me wish I had more time to spend there.

    You are welcome anytime in Vienna. You most likely also know Scott Hayes, he and I work closely together in His church; Bart is more related to a new church plant in the 22nd district (though we worshipped with us three years ago).

    Alexander
14. Jerry Starling says:

    September 19, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    You most likely also know Scott Hayes, he and I work closely together in His church; Bart is more related to a new church plant in the 22nd district (though we worshipped with us three years ago).

    Yes, I met Scott Hayes at the same time I met Bart – thought I have had occasion to correspond with Bart since then. I will try to remember your invitation should I ever have the opportunity to be there again. It took me 68 years of my life to get there the first time. Maybe in another 65 years I’ll be able to make it again!

    Jerry
15. Matt Dabbs says:

    September 22, 2011 at 8:55 am

    If inerrency means that every writer of the New Testament wrote their letters and books the exact same way and with the exact same purpose and intention as we wrote today it is hard to embrace that definition. But if inerrency means that if you could understand what they intended to say and how they intended to say it I think you are in the ballpark. In other words having an informed view of inerrency requires a good stab at solid and thorough exegesis.

    The quotes from Apologetics Press above basically say that you must interpret the Bible as if the writers were 21st century historians, scientists, or biographers and so any apparent contradictions are dealt with through that lens and standard of what we consider “accurate”. So they say Jesus must have cleansed the temple twice because it appears in different places in John and the synoptics. That completely disregards good exegesis, considering their rhetoric, style, advancing of themes, linking together like stories, teachings, themes, etc as all four Gospel authors did. The same with the age of the earth. Sure if you add up all the generations you come to so many thousands of years old. But that assumes the genealogies are complete and that the author, Moses, intended for it to be read so literally.

    So if the standard of inerrancy is that they must be like us and we must read them through the lenses of what we have come to know as literature it misses the point and you end up having to dance all over the place and stumble all over yourself trying to give scripture consistency. Scripture doesn’t need our help to make it consistent. What is even worse is to make that understanding a line of fellowship.
16. Jerry Starling says:

    September 22, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Matt,
    You have articulated what I have tried to say by stating that the Bible is reliable for the purpose for which it is given.
    Jerry
17. abasnar says:

    September 24, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    Sure if you add up all the generations you come to so many thousands of years old. But that assumes the genealogies are complete and that the author, Moses, intended for it to be read so literally.

    Hm. And how then shall we read these detailed accounts of years and numbers? If – quoting Jerry – “the Bible is reliable forthe purpose for which it was given” what is the puropse of these parts of scripture?

    Have you yourself ever made a detailed study of the genealogies (please don’t use 1Ti 1:4 as an excuse to dismess them alltogether)? I did, and it was very very interesting. What surprized me most was that before the flood all people lived up to 900+ years, but after the flood this changed. From generation to generation people died at a younger age – Abraham only reached 200 years, Mose only 120 years, and in his days the avarage age one could reach was between 70 and 80 years. I think there is only one recorded age beyond 120 after Moses’ days.

    Why does this surprize me? Moses obviously collected older texts and compiled them in his first book. P.J. Wiseman pointed once out that we cann see writing traditions in these text that are typical for the time around 2000 B.C. – so these are actually very old written records that Moses compiled. We see that God decided at the time of Noah to limit the life-span of people to 120 years:

    Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

    He did not change that immediately, but over a time a of several generation which makes a lot of sense! Had he changed that within one generation, evrything would have collapsed, the ways people managed their lives could never have been adapted to this dramatically reduced life-span. Noah still reached 950 years, his son Sem only 600 …. Abraham’s father Terach died at age 205 … Mose at 120.

    The purpose of these texts is not to help us calculate the age of the earth, but it certainly is to tell history. This is an amazing history, and when i look at this I can hardly see a way how someone could make this up, esp. since all the parts of Genesis were originally written by different authors before Moses; and Moses himself never mad any comment about these genealogies. He did not sum them up and made no conclusions … it’s up to the careful reader to discover this.

    Calculating the age of the earth is just a side effect. It is possible, because the obvious puropse of these genalogies is to present a complete history of God’s people. Again: The purpose of the genealogies is to present a complete history of God’s people.

    Now: “the Bible is reliable forthe purpose for which it was given”

    If we say No to this: “No, they are not reliable! These numbers a re wrong, the genealogies are not complete, …” what is the reason for such claims? The scriptures themselves don’t lead us to such conclusions.

    Alexander
18. Matt Dabbs says:

    September 24, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    abasnar,

    There are many purposes for genealogies in scripture. You are assuming they are there to “present a complete history of God’s people” but what is that assumption based on? Does scripture tell us that? No. Assumptions are powerful and provide lenses through which we read, analyze, and interpret information. The way you tell what genealogies purposes are is to see how these writers used them…what point were they making/what were they trying to prove. There is no verse that says these names are recorded to give you a complete picture of human history without leaving out a generation. There are many lists in scripture that leave out names all over the place.

    When you look at biblical genealogies there are several purposes. Some times genealogies are there to prove a certain person is a descendant of another person…to prove their lineage. They very often leave out names along the way to get to the point.

    Just so I don’t reinvent the wheel in his post please read this so you can be informed on this issue and not through around statements that just aren’t true and have no scriptural basis…like when you say genealogies are there to give us a complete history of God’s people. Just not true. What you are doing is taking the modern concept of genealogy and imposing it on scripture. That link has a ton of scripture that will help you what Jerry and I are talking about here. Hope you will read it – http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html
19. Matt Dabbs says:

    September 24, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    One last point…incomplete genealogy does not mean the Bible is wrong. You will understand that after you read that link. Thanks for listening.
20. abasnar says:

    September 24, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    I was specifically referring the the genealogies in Gen 1-12 (I did not clarify this). The way they are recorded with exact years of birth and so on makes it clear that they are intended to be complete. I’ll read the link you posted in a minute …

    Alexander
21. Alabama John says:

    September 24, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Matt,
    Good reading, I enjoyed it.
    One think that becomes obvious is no one knows, throughout history many have had simply opinions and we all have them.
    Mine is as good as any of those so I’ll just stick with mine.
    When God made this earth he made it out of something and that something could of been old, nothing says all was brand new.
    Sorta like me building a building out of older buildings different parts.
    When anyone tests any one part, it will show an age far different than the age of the building I just built.
    A perfect example is Adam and Eve, if a scientist tested them hours after they were made using todays best medical science they would of been judged grown but really they were just hours old. Same with the earth.
    The reality of all this is all throughout history are guessing at best.
    Wouldn’t you of liked to be at a table with all those famous experts throughout history with each arguing his point and presenting his numbers.
    Wouldn’t sound much different from many biblical and history arguments of today would it.
    Then after a while you just wonder, “what’s the point and how does it matter anyway?”
22. Matt Dabbs says:

    September 24, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    abasnar,

    Can you explain this – “The way they are recorded with exact years of birth and so on makes it clear that they are intended to be complete.”

    I would like to hear how this rules out any other interpretation, telescoping of genealogies, etc so conclusively. I don’t really see how it would exclude that from happening or how just because it tells how long people lived means it is there to give us a “complete history of God’s people” as you said the purpose of biblical genealogies are.

    Second, can you harmonize your statements that the purpose of biblical genealogies are to give us a “complete history of God’s people” and your statement that is only true of Genesis 1-12. That leaves out an awful lot of history by your interpretation of these verses! Doesn’t sound like both can be true. Can you help me understand how those two things can both be true? Thanks.
23. abasnar says:

    September 25, 2011 at 2:54 am

    Telescoping – as I understand it from the article – works in genealogies that are les specific, and can be confirmed when comparing genealogies: e.g:

    Mat 1:8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah

    In 2Ch 21-26 it is reported that Joram was the great-great-grandfather of Uzziah. OK, Matthew summed it up – but can we say that 2nd Chronicles also summed it up? Especially Kings and Chronicles are very interested in the succession of Kings and writing the people’s history.

    So you can’t say that because sometimes genealogies were telescoped, this applies to all genealogies – making them worthless for counting the years. That’s an extrapolation that does not fit the texts.

    Look at Gen 5 and Gen 11: Where do these genealogies leave room for gaps? At age X a man beget his son, and then he lived Y years more. His son at age X beget a son, and then lived Y years more. And so on. My question is how we can explain this away.

    Interesting, maybe not so much known: In Sumerian texts Nimrod is confirmed as the founder of Uruk: En-me-rud (the same konsonants as Nimrod) kar (meaning hunter). Also his father Meskiag (= “beloved hero”) Kasher (similar to Kush) fits Gen 10. Other Sumerian Texts confirm Nimrod’s father also as the father of the Ethiopians. I only have a German book about this: The Stars of Babylon (Die Sterne von Babyon) by Werner Papke.

    But this is important: Here we have the same line of descendants (Papke describes that the genealogies from Ham to Nimrod and beyond to Gilgamesh) – and at least for this part of the genealogies in Gen 10 we cannot see telescoping, but we find confirmation from outside the scriptures.

    2nd question: You misquote me, Matt. I did not say this was only true for Gen 1-12, but that I had these genealogies in mind. The reason: These are more crucial for the young earth than the others, because the genealogies from later times are connected to written history outside the Bible. E.g. Abraham lived at the time of Hammurabi, and these connections make it quite clear at which year in history we are. It’s the time before Abraham than is disputed in our young earth discussions.

    Alexander

    P.S.: We can discuss the dates and years given in the LXX versus the Masoretic Text. There are differences; but nonetheless we speak of a mankind that is not older than 7000 years.

    So, if mankind is 7000 +/- years old, how far shall we stretch the six days of creation without destroying the text?

Comments are closed.