Biblical inerrancy

[Steven Avery]

2 Timothy references Luke verse as scripture

Hi,

Thanks...

Welcome. It is a fascinating topic. A few years back I went over this Timothy scripture aspect with the liberals and skeptics, and even they basically saw Luke-->Timothy as being the natural understanding.

1) The author of 1 Timothy used the Gospel of Luke as a source because the Gospel of Luke was written first.

This works without any problem.

2) The author of the Gospel of Luke used 1 Timothy as a source because 1 Timothy was written first..

Then the author of Timothy would have had no cause to have The labourer is worthy of his reward. as "the scripture saith".

3) Both authors used a phrase that ultimately originated from an earlier, separate source. For instance, if one were to read "The grass is always greener on the other side" from two different authors, one might conclude that neither of those authors is the originator. It could have been originated elsewhere and passed down in written form and/or orally.

Same difficulty as 2).

4) God is the direct author of both verses, which would have them originating from the same source.

That does not tell you why the Timothy author refers to scripture, which is written, if Luke was not first.

These are the only four explanations I can think of at the moment. I would also like to add that this is if we are only using these selected verses as the criterion of our dating of these books. My point is that the similarity of these two verses is useless when it comes to dating these writings.

The issue here is the order, Luke before Timothy, not the dating. Then the terminus ad quem for Timothy must apply to Luke, and the late dates after 65 AD are gone. In fact, you have to go earlier, enough time for Luke to circulate as scripture. And the issue is not similarity, it is the letter to Luke referring to the phrase as scripture, and the only written source of the phrase as scripture is Luke.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Markan priority stranglehold on the academy

Hi,

So will I because every historian/scholar I've spoken/emailed, dates Luke after Mark and that Luke used Mark as a source

The reason is the strangehold that Markan priority has on modern academia, although there are various dissenters. Some for Lukan priority, some for Matthew, maybe some that chaff at the idea of one Gospel having been original. e.g. If Luke and Mark shared information, and wrote in different languages, then they could publish around the same time, without one prioritized.

When you research the origin of Markan priority, you find that it is built on paradigms of liberalism and unbelief.

You have to be careful about the paradigms involved in discussing NT theories : e.g. any theory at all that works with post-70AD dating for New Testament books is essentially worthless for Bible believers and evangelicals, allowing a possible question for some on Revelation.

By the time the Markan priority mishegas gets to seminary and the popular apologetics book, the whole issue has been homogenized and vaporized. So you have to do your own studies. The net can help (e.g. the Theophilus paper).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

The reason is the strangehold that Markan priority has on modern academia, although there are various dissenters. Some for Lukan priority, some for Matthew, maybe some that chaff at the idea of one Gospel having been original. (e.g. If Luke and Mark shared information, and wrote in different languages, then they could publish around the same time, without one prioritized).

When you research the origin of Markan priority, you find that it is built on paradigms of liberalism and unbelief (e.g. any theory at all that works with post-70AD dating for New Testament books is essentially worthless for Bible believers and evangelicals, allowing a possible question for some on Revelation).

By the time it gets to seminary and the popular apologetics book, the whole issue has been homogenized and vaporized. So you have to do your own studies. The net can help (e.g. the Theophilus paper).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Some nice conspiracy theories there. I'll email some of the people I have previously though and see how they respond

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Re: 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God

1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

He does say "For the scripture saith", and it appears to be taken from Deuteronomy and Luke, as far as known sources are concerned. Did he really consider Luke as scripture at that time? Maybe the second half comes from a lost book, kinda like the Epistle of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, which is no longer canonical(unless you are Ethiopian Orthodox or something). If he is quoting from the Gospel of Luke, it just puts the composition of 1 Timothy at a later date than the Gospel of Luke without necessarily placing either book at an earlier date than Mark.

 

[Mike]

Some nice conspiracy theories there. I'll email some of the people I have previously though and see how they respond

This was a bit uncalled for. I found that last post carefully worded and thought provoking. Just because someone has a different view, it is not necessarily an argument. This response sounded defensive, but you had no cause to be.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Re: Markan priority stranglehold on the academy

Hi,

The reason is the strangehold that Markan priority has on modern academia, although there are various dissenters. Some for Lukan priority, some for Matthew, maybe some that chaff at the idea of one Gospel having been original. e.g. If Luke and Mark shared information, and wrote in different languages, then they could publish around the same time, without one prioritized.

When you research the origin of Markan priority, you find that it is built on paradigms of liberalism and unbelief.

You have to be careful about the paradigms involved in discussing NT theories : e.g. any theory at all that works with post-70AD dating for New Testament books is essentially worthless for Bible believers and evangelicals, allowing a possible question for some on Revelation.

By the time the Markan priority mishegas gets to seminary and the popular apologetics book, the whole issue has been homogenized and vaporized. So you have to do your own studies. The net can help (e.g. the Theophilus paper).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

You know, Steven, you do bring up some good points. Basically, much of modern academia is dating the various writings based on the assumption that there couldn't possibly have been any prophecy in the Bible, because prophecy is unscientific. Therefore, if a certain author of the Bible writes about an historic event, that writing must have occurred after said event. Christians like me and Grazer might have been unknowingly drawn into these secular assumptions. Good post, Steven!

 

[By Grace]

Re: inerrancy in the original autographs ?

Hi,

The idea that either inerrancy or infallibility (I will leave that distinction alone for now) only refers to the autographa, the original writings, was a doctrine created in the late 1800s at the same time that the Westcott-Hort text, with many obvious errors, was being pushed for use in some churches.

Before that time, inerrancy and infallibility were posited in either the apographa (existing passed-down pure Bible copies) or the Bible in your hand (e.g. the AV). And those are the only meaningful definitions. Since it is not logical to posit inerrancy and infallibility in an unknown, ethereal text. This was pointed out by many writers at the time that the new definition was brought forth.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
http://purebible.blogspot.com/

Erasmus did not use "unknown or ethereal manuscripts".

The development of the doctrine of inerrancy is a response to the invention of the documentary hypothesis by Graff-Wellhausen and the higher criticism crowd. But to infer that people did not assume Scriptures were neither infallible or inerrant prior to that (as you seem to do) is to make an argument from silence. Your say-so should be reinforced by evidence stating that such and such did not believe that the Bible was inerrant.

 

[By Grace]

Re: Theophilus: A Proposal

So will I because every historian/scholar I've spoken/emailed, dates Luke after Mark and that Luke used Mark as a source

What you are referring to is the "Q theory" Q stands for quelle, and is a German word meaning "source". and is used by many scholars of the liberal persuasion. Basically, they believe that there are common things in each of the Gospels, they therefore came from a single, shared source. hence the quelle.

Unfortunately, there is no record of anything like by the Early Church Fathers, who had access to the Apostles amd/or were their disciples. That would include luminaries like Polycarp (69 – 155) who was a 2nd century Christian bishop of Smyrna.

If you were to query folk from a conservative seminary, you would get a different resulr in your answers.

 

[Grazer]

You know, Steven, you do bring up some good points. Basically, much of modern academia is dating the various writings based on the assumption that there couldn't possibly have been any prophecy in the Bible, because prophecy is unscientific. Therefore, if a certain author of the Bible writes about an historic event, that writing must have occurred after said event. Christians like me and Grazer might have been unknowingly drawn into these secular assumptions. Good post, Steven!

But if a writer doesn't include an event doesn't mean it was written before. I'm not an historian so I consulted them and the vast majority of them date Luke around 60-80AD with Luke using mark as a source based on the number of verses they share. They date Mark as being the first based partially on the number of verses in mark found in matthew aswell. These are the figures I'm going with at the moment and no, I don't buy into the "you're using secular influences" argument.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

What you are referring to is the "Q theory" Q stands for quelle, and is a German word meaning "source". and is used by many scholars of the liberal persuasion. Basically, they believe that there are common things in each of the Gospels, they therefore came from a single, shared source. hence the quelle.

Unfortunately, there is no record of anything like by the Early Church Fathers, who had access to the Apostles amd/or were their disciples. That would include luminaries like Polycarp (69 – 155) who was a 2nd century Christian bishop of Smyrna.

If you were to query folk from a conservative seminary, you would get a different resulr in your answers.

Q is a theory but that doesn't negate Luke having used Mark as a source.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[By Grace]

Q is a theory but that doesn't negate Luke having used Mark as a source.

Because Q is a theory, and because there has not been found anything to substantiate it in the 100+ years since its invention, it is logically impossible to posit anything about something that does not exist. It is like stating that the spiral cones on the top of unicorns is actually a hunting weapon where they skewered rabbits, and then ate them raw. Because unicorns do not exist, it is fruitless to speculate on what they ate.

That there are similar events reported in both Mark and Luke is a fact. However to extrapolate that Luke copied from Mark is to make an assumption about something for there is no evidence. A likely explanation could be that they interviewed the same people at the same time, or else they interviewed the same person at different times, and the person said the same things.

BTW in using the unicorn example, I am merely making an analogy. Please do not construe it as baiting.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

But if a writer doesn't include an event doesn't mean it was written before.

I agree. I never said that it did. Even your run-of-the-mill non-Christian Biblical scholar would agree with this.

I'm not an historian so I consulted them and the vast majority of them date Luke around 60-80AD with Luke using mark as a source based on the number of verses they share. They date Mark as being the first based partially on the number of verses in mark found in matthew aswell. These are the figures I'm going with at the moment and no, I don't buy into the "you're using secular influences" argument.

You don't buy into the "you're using secular influences" argument?

God could have said, "Let there be the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke", and poof, it was so. All three could have appeared at the same time. It wouldn't matter if they shared some of the same material. Maybe God wanted to reiterate Himself in certain spots, so that if the reader reads the Bible from start to finish, these duplicate passages strategically fall in exactly the order God wanted them to.

In other words, Markan Priority works best with the removal of the assumption that a God was involved. I fell into the same trap that you are currently in, until Steven so eloquently illustrated the reason for the "Markan Priority Stranglehold"(MPS).

In other words, you fell right into the trap that secular-driven academia has set for you.

 

[Steven Avery]

the New Testament is pre-70 AD

Hi,

He does say "For the scripture saith", and it appears to be taken from Deuteronomy and Luke, as far as known sources are concerned. Did he really consider Luke as scripture at that time? Maybe the second half comes from a lost book, kinda like the Epistle of Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch, which is no longer canonical(unless you are Ethiopian Orthodox or something).

Right. However, when Paul quoting Luke in 2 Timothy is straightforward, essentially without any difficulties, such solutions as unknown quasi-canonical "scripture" are very Ockham discomfiting. ie. They become a type of special pleading, looking for possible oddball alternatives, rather than just working with and accepting the starightforward harmony and history.

If he is quoting from the Gospel of Luke, it just puts the composition of 1 Timothy at a later date than the Gospel of Luke without necessarily placing either book at an earlier date than Mark.

Agreed, and, I definitely believe that Mark and Luke are close in time anyway. The point was to show that the Bible itself contradicts dating of Luke (and therefore Mark and Matthew) as after Timothy. If you place Timothy and Acts in the 60 AD period, you have already pushed Luke back to around 40-50 AD. And the Theophilus proposal becomes eminently sensible, in which case we can date Luke to within about a year of 41 AD (we know when Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest). These are not given as proven, just as extremely strong and sensible dates.

So once you have Luke at 41 AD, Mark can be around the same time, but he really can not be significantly earlier. And the Lukan Prologue is almost surely not referring to Mark, that is one reason why it was not yet a circulating gospel, at least not in Greek.

Another point is that Mark is often a little lighter on some details, in a way that implies that Luke's gospel was around and the reader could use that to get a fuller picture. (This could refers to the birth account, certain stories around the Galilee and definitely the resurrection account. I do believe Mark wrote the full chapter 16 with the resurrection appearances of Jesus. which is in 99.9% of our Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts.) I have not looked at those synoptic details in awhile, however I noticed a few "aha"s when I viewed the Gospels in that manner. Most modernist critics work in reverse, wanting the least full Gospel first, they even have Mark writing without the resurrection appearances, ending at 16:8, with the women afraid. Thus making any theories they have about Markan timing rather worthless.

For many unbelievers, skeptics and liberals, this also explains an attraction to the Markan priority idea, combined with the deformed ending, since many view Mark as not having written about the resurrection appearances. Thus they can claim that the resurrection was a tack-on idea of the "later" gospels, the earliest gospel, from their perspective, did not speak of these appearances of Jesus. I learned about all this when I mucked around in discussion with the savvy skeptics, who knew how to play with the popular theories of the modern textual crew.

However, this is not exactly why Markan priority got popular, that is a study in its own right.

You know, Steven, you do bring up some good points. Basically, much of modern academia is dating the various writings based on the assumption that there couldn't possibly have been any prophecy in the Bible, because prophecy is unscientific. Therefore, if a certain author of the Bible writes about an historic event, that writing must have occurred after said event. Christians like me and Grazer might have been unknowingly drawn into these secular assumptions. Good post, Steven!

Right. The situation is so bad in academia that even the good guys don't take the right position of clearly claiming pre-70AD NT dating, even though some scholars have demonstrated that this is the only consistent dating if the NT is true and prophetic.

Especially starting with John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919-1983) with Redating the New Testament in 1976, who, despite some liberal orientation and still keeping Luke around 57-60, showed that the consistent position was the New Testament before 70 AD. The Wiki article (decent +) quotes him as a conspiracy theorist as well :

Concluding his research, he wrote in his work, Redating the New Testament, that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness".

So today, even when a scholar like Richard Bauckham writes of "eyewitness" testimony (working with the Lukan Prologue) he still allows Gospel accounts to be post 70 AD, despite the fact that such NT dating effectively negates his whole position.

Again, I will point out that some want to date Revelation after 70 AD. While I disagree with that position, a person could hold to a late Revelation and accept that the rest of the NT is pre-70 AD.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[felix]

Re: John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

Hi,

If you look at the AV you will see the distinction between the two meanings of Word is carefully maintained through capitalization.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.

For the lower case, and with the emphasis on scripture, these verses were given by Stovebolts in #126.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Your siggy mentions the NKJV, often it does not keep proper distinctions from the AV, however you could check there.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

But neither John nor any of new testament is written in English.

• God Forbid! - I know it is in AV taking God's name in vain but never occurs in any Greek manuscript.
• Translating as Easter for just one verse and all the rest (nearly 20) of the occurences as Passover does not change Passover as Easter.
• Further, AV says, the beast of Rev 13 can give life which is wrong since only God can give life.

AV is a good translation but that is not a standard simply because it is just a translation. Also, in 1st century AD, Greek was not written in caps and small as modern Greeks do today.

 

[Steven Avery]

inerrancy in the original autographs ?- the 1800s doctrinal error unto Chicago

Hi,

Erasmus did not use "unknown or ethereal manuscripts". The development of the doctrine of inerrancy is a response to the invention of the documentary hypothesis by Graff-Wellhausen and the higher criticism crowd. But to infer that people did not assume Scriptures were neither infallible or inerrant prior to that (as you seem to do) is to make an argument from silence. Your say-so should be reinforced by evidence stating that such and such did not believe that the Bible was inerrant.

Briefly, inerrancy was the historic Reformation position. It was inerrancy in the apographa, the extant copies, not in the autographa. The autographa theory arose in the late 1800s, the same time as the corrupt Critical Texts, with errors like the swine marathon from Gerasa, Jesus not going to the feast, the eclipse, and much, much more, now being printed in the new versions based on the Westcott-Hort recension.

Among the Reformers, the word used (e.g. in the Westminster Confession) was infallible, which is in a sense a stronger word that includes inerrancy. Infallibility implies the perfect nature of God, while inerrancy just means the absence of error, so the Reformation infallibility included inerrancy (with phrases like "without admixture of error").

Any reference to inerrancy only in the autographs is meant to obfuscate, since the autographs are not being identified, the person making the claim is relying on the fact that they are unknown and ethereal. Benjamin Warfield took this to the height of absurdity by claiming that the person asserting error has to first prove what was the autograph!

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

Hi,

But neither John nor any of new testament is written in English. .

The dual sense of the use of the word "word" is rather clear, and is followed to various degrees by many writers.

The AV shows you that distinction through capitalization, if you want to use a version that mixes this up, that is your prerogative.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[felix]

Re: John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

Hi,

The dual sense of the use of the word "word" is rather clear, and is followed to various degrees by many writers.

The AV shows you that distinction through capitalization, if you want to use a version that mixes this up, that is your prerogative.

Shalom,
Steven

I don't stick upon any version but always go to the Greek texts/manuscripts to find the actual truth (to the best I can). I merely showed the text in Greek, the way it is there which doesn't match in AV.

 

[Vanguard]

Re: John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

Hi,

The dual sense of the use of the word "word" is rather clear, and is followed to various degrees by many writers.

The AV shows you that distinction through capitalization, if you want to use a version that mixes this up, that is your prerogative.

Shalom,
Steven

You should really read my post at: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48731

Might give you some insight, and what felix might be talking about...

 

[Vanguard]

Also, with regard to Mark vs Luke and which was written first...

The reason why so many scholars agree that Mark was written first is because the story originally ends at Mark 16:8 (visitation of the empty tomb...and that's it). The verses 9-20 were added at a later date. The other Gospel Books go into deeper detail after the resurrection.

Forget biblical references for now and look at historical and psychological motives. If you want to plant a new church/religion, you have to lay the groundwork. People want doctrines, bylaws, rules, a system of beliefs, explanations, etc. All of this is found in greater detail outside of Mark. Parables, metaphors, sightings of Jesus having been raised from the dead to fulfill the messiah prophecy, etc. All of this was taking place throughout Matthew, Luke and John, but not so much in Mark.

Remember that Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the messiah, and rejects the NT. This is the mentality that the apostles were up against at that time. They were the rebels/radicals.

The older a story gets, the more it expands. If you use a chronological criticism, it fits the perfect mold of Mark then Luke, and later Matthew. It is also why the story continues beyond the tomb visitation in the other three books of the Gospels. They had to expand. They had to lay their foundation. They had to try and convince people to believe. And someone, at some point later on, added v9-20 in Mark to support what the others were saying.

Mark: the first version, very few details, incomplete story.
Luke and beyond: expands on Mark and lays the foundation for Christianity's early church.

Clear as day.

 

[felix]

Also, with regard to Mark vs Luke and which was written first...

The reason why so many scholars agree that Mark was written first is because the story originally ends at Mark 16:8 (visitation of the empty tomb...and that's it). The verses 9-20 were added at a later date. The other Gospel Books go into deeper detail after the resurrection.

Forget biblical references for now and look at historical and psychological motives. If you want to plant a new church/religion, you have to lay the groundwork. People want doctrines, bylaws, rules, a system of beliefs, explanations, etc. All of this is found in greater detail outside of Mark. Parables, metaphors, sightings of Jesus having been raised from the dead to fulfill the messiah prophecy, etc. All of this was taking place throughout Matthew, Luke and John, but not so much in Mark.

Remember that Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the messiah, and rejects the NT. This is the mentality that the apostles were up against at that time. They were the rebels/radicals.

The older a story gets, the more it expands. If you use a chronological criticism, it fits the perfect mold of Mark then Luke, and later Matthew. It is also why the story continues beyond the tomb visitation in the other three books of the Gospels. They had to expand. They had to lay their foundation. They had to try and convince people to believe. And someone, at some point later on, added v9-20 in Mark to support what the others were saying.

Mark: the first version, very few details, incomplete story.
Luke and beyond: expands on Mark and lays the foundation for Christianity's early church.

Clear as day.

Luke was explicit in details.

(Luke 1:1-4) Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Luke provides an excellent information on what is happening. He mentions that many had taken themselves in narrating the events about Christ based on eyewitnesses and ministers.

So, Luke says, it seems to be good for him also to write down because, Luke himself said, he had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first.

Luke does not say he copied but said, He himself had known them from the beginning. Luke is writing to Theophilus for him to increase in faith to be certain that the things were true.

Hence, Luke is not copying from any source but writing down what he had known. Just because Matthew and Mark have common things with Luke does not mean one copied from another or there is another source. As we know most of them are written based on reliable eyewitness accounts and Luke might have made an effort to gather first hand eyewitness accounts. You can see this in the details he mentions. You can't mention details of events unless you actually sit down and gather information about events.

Hence, Luke did an excellent job of not only providing the source at the beginning of the gospel of Luke, he is also responsible for the details mentioned in Acts. Hence, Luke is written before Acts.

Based on what Luke says about his perfect understanding about the events, I believe Luke was actually a disciple of Jesus (but not mentioned as one of the 12), but others who followed Christ.