Biblical inerrancy

[smaller]

I've gone through your posts here and find myself agreeing with your observations but not your conclusions - though I feel we are divided only on semantics and not the content per se.Could you tell me how you are exempt from your above quoted apprehension?

By not practicing that method referenced.

Here, concerning the doctrine of inerrancy, you have claimed otherwise.

I made no such claims.

Am I then to cast a weary eye on your claim,

I cast no detriment your way so there is none to be seen or had.

since it has been followed shortly thereafter by your supposedly inerrant dissection of this doctrine,

I merely pointed to the factual matters of discourse, that parabolic understandings are conveyed as a matter of fact and that inerrancy can not be based on 'identical statements of Jesus' being identical because they obviously are NOT.

That's the essence of observation, previously noted and delineated in brief.

For example, multiple yet not identical statements from Jesus or Gods Words in the O.T. can not be the measure of inerrancy as they are obviously varied.

It's a fairly simple observation.

which could be used to proselytize to similar adherents(of errancy, if I may), and even more largely to my personal detriment if I do not adhere to your personally inerrant dissection on this doctrine of inerrancy, where you claim otherwise?

The outline was 'only' that inerrancy is a matter of perspective. I can not take multiple differentiating statements as the measure of inerrancy from a simple perspective of reasoning. You are welcome to say and to see otherwise. Using the measure of rote identicalness does not work or compute because it doesn't exist as a matter of fact.

Please note, I myself am not actually apprehensive of your claim - I only want to know on what basis you discern and determine truth. For instance, my current guiding principles are - Scripture is not contradictory, Scripture interprets Scripture, and all glory is to God alone.

Again, I am merely pointing to the fact that Gods Words as recorded, though similar, are not identical. God in Christ for example made a certain statement in the Old Testament which same I cited in my first post. Jesus then makes a 'nearly' identical statement to Satan as recorded by Matthew and another 'nearly' identical statement as recorded by Luke. But they are not identical in the way of rote exactness, black on white, which one might expect if that was the measure of inerrancy.

Common sense should tell anyone the same thing. That can not be the measure because it doesn't exist.

What is meant by "variations" here? And in your reference to the variations in Jesus' 2nd coming - why should any of that conclude that the Bible is not inerrant?

Not at all. There is as a fact numerous observations available as numerous observations are factually shown. The tendency of the observers is to focus on the ones they like at the discount of other contradictions to such sights. One may take one of the several statements regarding the 2nd coming or they might consider they should consider all of them, even when seemingly contradictory.

Which will eventually get back to the heart of the construct of the Word itself. There are purposefully set contradictions. This phenomena is recognized in various ways by many a fine bible scholar in such simplicities of observations where The Same Word that uplifted Moses was the Same Word that hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Same Word. Two different entirely different, polarizing and opposite effects.

Paul details these matters quite nicely in Romans showing the diametrically opposing cadence in effects. And in that effort a division is forced upon himself by the Word.

He employs this difficulty upon himself, personally, in Romans 7. Goes on in detail as it applied to Jews and Old Testament figures in Romans 9, and culminates the efforts in Romans 11, showing it to be a working principle of fact with everyone. Same Word, TWO effects.

Jesus employed the identical dissections in his own parable teachings, showing for example that the SAME WORD that comes to SAVE MEN also IMPELS Satan into the heart to resist same.

Mark 4:15 is my favorite example of this fact. One Word. Two opposite workings. It also is part of the way of understanding the numerous deployments of FACTS.

I'm not going to employ any theological or exegetical in-context approach to interpreting this. Simply, from purely an analysis of the figures of speech in language, I would make complete non-contradictory sense if I were to use hyperbolic/non-hyperbolic similes in say, "Jesus came as lightning" [He filled the skies for all to see just as lightning does] or if I were to use symbolic physical foreshadows of spiritual real things to come in say, "Except if any man eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood, he has no life in him".

There is undoubtedly a superabundance of similies and parables deployed in the text. The division of them is exceptionally simple if seen by the Words of understandings that are given. But that also takes 'personal' applications of the fact that it happens as well, and therein the personal dilemma came into Paul.

And again, I might observe that the exact intention of inerrancy is to force this dilemma to surface in any reader and also into the world itself by the Living Actions of Gods Word and Spirit.

Another example of this is again shown by Paul in Romans 7 where he states flatly that the LAW was ordained for LIFE, but in the final analysis he found it to be the exact OPPOSITE in applications.

He then goes on to saythat IS the exact intention of the Word of Law, THE LAW OF LIFE, is to work the exact opposite to come about, to make SIN utterly SINFUL.

I think you can get that picture can you not? It's not 'personal revelation' but 'working' fact set right there to see.

We also know that a single object could have multiple adjectival descriptives (Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of man, the Lord of lords, the King of Glory, the Good Shepherd etc. all at the same time with no inconsistency at all).

Undoubtedly. God can be both our Savior and our Resistor simultaneously if we understand the 'inerrant' operational principle that is being engaged.

He is both SAVIOR KING and DESTROYING KING simultaneously.

As far as I know, people who believe the doctrine of inerrancy do account for the figures of speech as part of a literal reading rather than a completely literalistic reading. So, why must these 'variations'(I wouldn't call it that - they are simply different non-contradictory descriptives) imply that this doctrine of inerrancy is false?

Exactly. But again, as to understanding 'inerrancy' it is assuredly NOT based on those statements of Jesus recorded by different recorders as being IDENTICAL because they obviously ARE NOT.

The 'literalist' only objective only passes away in the face of that reality. There can NOT be 'literally' 3-5 different 'exact statements' of God and have them be taken as exact literal identical statements as they are not such statements on the face of the matters.

So, Jesus said

A from one writer
B from another writer
C from another

Which statement of fact is the LITERAL FACTUAL STATEMENT?

Get the drift here? None of the 3.

If by "how", you're looking for the necessary and sufficient cause - it's only the grace of God. There could however be many other 'variations' as instrumental causes. Where again is there an undeniable contradiction to conclude upon the errancy of Scripture?

There does not factually exist multiple 'Word of God' statements FROM GOD. The importance of any given writers 'exactness' of quote is not and can not be the measure because they are not that way. Even with Paul in recounting the Words of Jesus on the Road to Damascus for example and the actions thereof does in fact give different accounts with different details each time. And those 'differences' are in fact purposeful and important to consider in understandings.

Well, what is your framework of evaluating who the greater sinner is?

Just pointing to Paul's statement of fact. Whatever framework given would seem to need to fit the statement of fact would it not?

Is a serial-killing mass murderer a greater sinner than a self-conceited Pharisaical legalistic zealot?

And that is just you looking backwards at Paul. Paul made his statement as a matter of present fact, I am, not 'was.'

I'm inclined to think not - for as C.S.Lewis observed, self-pride ought to be the greatest of sins - it's the sin that made the devil, the devil. If Paul were to refer to himself as the chief of sinners, perhaps it is in the sense of having committed the chief of sins and not necessarily being the chief in number of sins or in its worldly effect. To conclude upon this as an undeniable contradiction, you must completely exhaust all other possible interpretations - have you actually done that or are you measuring another paradigm's conclusions against your own paradigm's presuppositions(which logically ought not to be done)?

Were the case a matter of past history then the term would not have been employed as I am, but was.

And yes, there is a Perfectly Divinely Logical explanation for this matter.

And why is there a contradiction in Paul commanding us not to sin while acknowledging that he is a sinner himself?

One of two sights will arise in this matter. Paul was either a raging hypocrite or there are more interesting things to observe to get to the heart of the matters.

Where is the contradiction in the messenger not practicing the message he relays?

Do as I say, not as I do? I doubt it.

If Paul is prescribing a moral principle as an ideal on one hand and describing his own failure at it on the other hand, where is the contradiction? Why have you assumed that prescriptive moral ideals must be undeniably accompanied with corresponding descriptive behavior to ensure logical consistency?

Well, I might say that is yours to discover. If you see no difficulty there, then by all means, pass on and we can just mark Paul up as the biggest hypocrite that ever lived. If you call him being the chief of sinners as a little moral failure what can I say?

He demands to sin not, yet says of sinners, I am chief?

He could have very easily placed himself anywhere else on the scale of sinning men at that time.

But what of Paul asking the churches to "do as he does" - is he asking them to be chief among sinners too? Why have you assumed Paul's "I am the chief of sinners" to refer to only his present-tense ongoing chiefly sinful behavior - why couldn't he be referring to his ongoing status as chief among sinners in the present and not necessarily his past behavior that merited him such an ongoing status, especially given the past tense reference in 1 Tim 1:13 ?

Paul did not convey that in past tense application.

Yes, but I can't quite see what the contradiction is here, to conclude upon the errancy of Scripture.

No, you obviously don't see any problems. Let's just slide on by.

Fair enough. But how are those falling in disputes caused necessarily by contradictions in an errant Scripture? Why can't it be caused by their lack of understanding of these seemingly contradictory parts of inerrant and/or infallible Scripture [aka paradoxes]?

Definitely a step in the RIGHT direction.

Can we both suppose together that Apostles are attacked in mind and heart to a far greater degree by the enemy of our souls?

And could that fact enter into this matter of Paul?

Apostles are ALWAYS on the forefront of the battles, and yes, they are INTERNAL in and by nature of the subject matter.

Simple when seen in that light, No?

The 'Same Word' that lifted Paul and turned him from the POWER OF SATAN in fact ALSO caused the POWER OF SATAN to attack him even MORESO.

Paradox? Only as to 'working effect' of WORD. The principle however is quite sound. And we can even look around us on any given day and see men of God collapsing under the onslaughts of those battles constantly.

It can be ugly.

But does the doctrine of inerrancy make such claims? I'm inclined to think otherwise given this article from the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy -

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Again, does inerrancy deny variant selections of material in parallel accounts? Does it deny the reporting of falsehoods?

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

I have no issues with some tranliterations being exceptionally close to the original statements at all. But to say such are 'inerrant' is not possible. Languages themselves are not that easy to cross over. There is no doubt that the best attempts at transliterations can vary quite dramatically and paraphrased translations can be even more dramatically varied, especially when various agendas are underway, such as the JW's bible for example.

s

 

[ivdavid]

The outline was 'only' that inerrancy is a matter of perspective. I can not take multiple differentiating statements as the measure of inerrancy from a simple perspective of reasoning. You are welcome to say and to see otherwise. Using the measure of rote identicalness does not work or compute because it doesn't exist as a matter of fact.

A large part of what you wrote seems to revolve around this assumption of yours that the doctrine of inerrancy is based on a measure of rote identicalness. Why are you operating on such an assumption? I would decry such a basis, just as you, if this indeed were one of the demands of inerrancy. But what has given you the impression that inerrancy requires black-on-white rote exactness?

Which will eventually get back to the heart of the construct of the Word itself. There are purposefully set contradictions.

One Word. Two opposite workings. It also is part of the way of understanding the numerous deployments of FACTS.

As I supposed in my earlier post, I think the chief issue here could be that of semantics and not content. See, I agree with the entirety of this part of your post, especially the summary set out in the second of the above statements. The only place where I take exception to, is where you use the word "contradictions" in the above first statement. Did you use the word "contradictions" to mean "opposite workings"? I accept and see "opposite workings" in nearly the whole of Scripture, but I deny any "contradictions". I mean "contradictions" in the logical derivative sense such as 2 mutually exclusive statements not being simultaneously true. But "opposite workings" can be consistent and non-contradictory - these are distinguished as "paradoxes" or 'seeming contradictions' but not contradictions themselves. Have you made such a distinction and would you still use the word "contradiction" to convey what you believe?

And again, I might observe that the exact intention of inerrancy is to force this dilemma to surface in any reader and also into the world itself by the Living Actions of Gods Word and Spirit.

Absolutely true. "Dilemma" works. "Paradox/opposite workings/seeming contradictions" are just as fine. It's just that I hold "inerrancy" to imply there are no logical "contradictions" in Scripture and so, when I read your above statement which I completely agree with - And I read you state that Scripture has "contradictions" - I read it as you denying the inerrancy of Scripture and hence defeating the above good intention of inerrancy. But if you could confirm that you do not strictly associate "contradiction" with "negating inerrancy", then I'll read accordingly.

He is both SAVIOR KING and DESTROYING KING simultaneously.

Agreed.

The 'literalist' only objective only passes away in the face of that reality.

Could you also confirm if you strictly associate inerrancy with literalism? You seem to be faulting what literalism stands for in this context, and rightly so, and then you seem to be applying it to inerrancy - do you acknowledge that there could be adherents of inerrancy who are not literalists in the manner you've described above? If so, why again are you persistent in tackling this particular point - have you had many run-ins with such literalists touting inerrancy in this manner - because I haven't yet.

Do as I say, not as I do? I doubt it.

This statement per se is not a logical contradiction. It throws up one possibility(among other possibilities) of it being hypocritical, yes, but it isn't a logical contradiction. Solomon could have made the above statement, and there's a good possibility that he wasn't hypocritical in doing so, especially if it's in reflection of past transgressions. But let's see the case of ongoing transgressions too.

If Paul is prescribing a moral principle as an ideal on one hand and describing his own failure at it on the other hand, where is the contradiction? Why have you assumed that prescriptive moral ideals must be undeniably accompanied with corresponding descriptive behavior to ensure logical consistency?

If you see no difficulty there, then by all means, pass on and we can just mark Paul up as the biggest hypocrite that ever lived. If you call him being the chief of sinners as a little moral failure what can I say?

Don't worry, I didn't call him that. I am merely exploring the rules of logic and checking for the "contradiction" you claim. Like I said earlier, if you mean "opposite workings", I am in agreement - I just don't see a logical contradiction here. Firstly, concluding that Paul was a raging hypocrite is a logically consistent conclusion which throws up no contradiction at all - unless you have already presupposed the premise that he isn't one. And for the record, I don't believe he was one - but we're discussing inerrancy and hence contradictions in Scripture and I'm pointing out that this doesn't throw up a logical contradiction.

But that point was merely for argument, so setting that aside, I'd still ask why you're harshly judging anyone who doesn't practise what he preaches as hypocritical? I'm not a very keen fan of wikipedia but I feel this suffices for now, and if i'm permitted to quote this section from their page on "hypocrisy" -

" Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:

Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.

Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety. "

So, I could consistently hold that Paul was a moral failure, that he preached others not to be as him and that he wasn't hypocritical in preaching so, without any logical contradiction.

But I don't believe so and it doesn't complete our worldview either - so we press on further with the conviction that Paul was not a present-tense moral failure and yet claimed to be the chief of sinners. A nice working of opposites.

And yes, there is a Perfectly Divinely Logical explanation for this matter.

I agree. And I'm assuming that "Divinely" is used here to denote the source of the explanation rather than the type of logic - for all logic is the same, requiring no further distinction. And I concede that I do not have a divinely inspired explanation for Paul's statements here - what I have is of my own reasoning, which I believe to be fallible by itself. So, I'd like to hear what has been revealed to you and I'd pray that God impresses what you say upon my heart. This will not be debated upon, since I have no personal revelation myself. I also believe that no revelation of the understanding of God's word can contradict any of His previous revelation.

I'd like to know whether you hold Paul to be exhibiting ongoing chiefly sinful behavior at the time of his writing 1Tim?

Why have you assumed Paul's "I am the chief of sinners" to refer to only his present-tense ongoing chiefly sinful behavior - why couldn't he be referring to his ongoing status as chief among sinners in the present and not necessarily his past behavior that merited him such an ongoing status, especially given the past tense reference in 1 Tim 1:13 ?

Paul did not convey that in past tense application.

Could you tell me how you reached this conclusion. All translations seem to employ the past tense, but that aside, the word that stands for "previously/former" is used and anyway, I see no reason to still count Paul as a blasphemer at the time of writing.

The 'Same Word' that lifted Paul and turned him from the POWER OF SATAN in fact ALSO caused the POWER OF SATAN to attack him even MORESO.

Again, how are we using the term "caused" here? If it's on the lines of the Word being a provocative cause to Satan's actions, then I am in agreement with you.

I have no issues with some tranliterations being exceptionally close to the original statements at all. But to say such are 'inerrant' is not possible.

Agreed. That's why I hold that in all cases where there is absolutely no dissension on the faithful representation of the original, I'd hold the transliteration to be inerrant because I believe, as a concept, that the originals were completely inerrant. In all such places of dissension, which perhaps may even come to encompass the whole of Scripture, I hold it to be infallible.

Here, concerning the doctrine of inerrancy, you have claimed otherwise.

I made no such claims.

Are you referring specifically to the originals when you say you have not claimed errancy?

 

[Grazer]

Perhaps a more basic question needs to be asked. What do we mean by inerrancy?

 

[smaller]

A large part of what you wrote seems to revolve around this assumption of yours that the doctrine of inerrancy is based on a measure of rote identicalness. Why are you operating on such an assumption? I would decry such a basis, just as you,

Just establishing that is not the factual case.

But what has given you the impression that inerrancy requires black-on-white rote exactness?

I've given the examples. When someone says X is the Word of God, it isn't. It is often a remembrance in the hands of the writers and not an exact hardline quote.

As I supposed in my earlier post, I think the chief issue here could be that of semantics and not content.

Yes, and the semantics are often intentionally varied. That's all I was pointing out. Even in the worldly legal courts the judge often finds and rules on the 'spirit and intentions' of the letter because of the same issues. Or Bill Clinton on what the meaning of is, is.

See, I agree with the entirety of this part of your post, especially the summary set out in the second of the above statements. The only place where I take exception to, is where you use the word "contradictions" in the above first statement. Did you use the word "contradictions" to mean "opposite workings"?

Yes. Again as detailed prior. One Word. Two workings. It's one of the causes of difficulties in understandings. The variations and conflicts are intentional and patternistic. Even in the first command of 'law' to Adam it contains a conundrum that can cause strange thoughts of contemplations:

You may eat freely BUT...

Freely is not entirely freely.

I accept and see "opposite workings" in nearly the whole of Scripture, but I deny any "contradictions".

As would I. What may seem like a contradiction, for which there are many, there are Divine Intentions beneath the surface of same that will revolve around the 'opposite' working effect. So many, as we exercised prior with the example of Law intended for Life in reality works death. But that still doesn't mean there isn't also 'life' therein vivified by the Spirit. It is very easy to land on one side or the other when no such landing is required. There factually is two principles in play and ever in contentions and conflicts. Life and death are both in play and in contesting efforts. Yet many when they pick up such matters will go into 'auto lean' only to one side of the ledgers at the expense of the other. It's quite dynamic.

What I might see as an 'ever living' dynamic that lifts the workings from off the pages into the heart.

And in those various 'reflections' we get more of a 'read' of the handlers heart than of the Word itself.

I spent years in the 'sales' arena and used similar principles to get a 'real read' on customers heart/mind, past the 'surface' conversations, trying to get to the 'heart' of the matters. And the instrument of that read is often 'conflict.' It's like tapping a BELL with an instrument. You get a 'read' from the reflection in the insertion of conflict.

I mean "contradictions" in the logical derivative sense such as 2 mutually exclusive statements not being simultaneously true. But "opposite workings" can be consistent and non-contradictory - these are distinguished as "paradoxes" or 'seeming contradictions' but not contradictions themselves. Have you made such a distinction and would you still use the word "contradiction" to convey what you believe?

Such things are certainly contradictory on the surface, but not to the detriment of inerrancy. Conundrums, similies, parables are all 'like' that by the nature of the Word itself. It is made to bring opposing ideas and reflections to the surface. 'Like' a whale harpooned from the depths.

Absolutely true. "Dilemma" works. "Paradox/opposite workings/seeming contradictions" are just as fine. It's just that I hold "inerrancy" to imply there are no logical "contradictions" in Scripture and so, when I read your above statement which I completely agree with - And I read you state that Scripture has "contradictions" - I read it as you denying the inerrancy of Scripture and hence defeating the above good intention of inerrancy. But if you could confirm that you do not strictly associate "contradiction" with "negating inerrancy", then I'll read accordingly.

So we might 'reposition' to inerrant contradictions...;) See how beautiful that is...;) The Word in this way makes us bow to the Divine Intentional beauty of the construct rather than the hardline written letter, understanding the abundance of reflections that spill forth, both good and bad.

And of course we remember then what God has set before us all. Life and death. Good and bad. And the best reflectors will recognize both workings are factually within themselves in their own reflections and in their life. And will thusly lean HARD on LIFE and the matters of eternity. From there I know my brothers in Christ.

If however a given reflector comes up from the depths as another, I know there is factually 'another working/worker' in play that is not so benevolent. The Word in this way is my Ever Living Ally.

Could you also confirm if you strictly associate inerrancy with literalism?

Well, let's just face the fact that a LOT of hardline inerrantists are also hardline literalists in their reflections.

I reject all such notions in favor of the spiritual engagements. Matters such as mercy, grace, forgiveness, patience, judgments, love, faith can be written on a page, but they are in fact 'living' matters that are not letters on a page of a book. One will often find hardline 'inerrantists' and also even moreso 'hardline' in their total inabilities to perceive or 'live in and on' the weightier sides of the ledgers.

You seem to be faulting what literalism stands for in this context, and rightly so, and then you seem to be applying it to inerrancy - do you acknowledge that there could be adherents of inerrancy who are not literalists in the manner you've described above? If so, why again are you persistent in tackling this particular point - have you had many run-ins with such literalists touting inerrancy in this manner - because I haven't yet.

Yes, I understand and am in the inerrant camp, but not in the common vein. The Word and the Spirit of same are ever Hand in Hand. The Words themselves without the other can be quite entirely void and black on white. Men tend to fall in love with their own hardline black on white, never seeing what the Spirit wrought in them on the bad side of the ledgers, spirituallly speaking.

This statement per se is not a logical contradiction. It throws up one possibility(among other possibilities) of it being hypocritical, yes, but it isn't a logical contradiction. Solomon could have made the above statement, and there's a good possibility that he wasn't hypocritical in doing so, especially if it's in reflection of past transgressions. But let's see the case of ongoing transgressions too.

If one learns to read Solomons Wisdom through the eyes of the Spirit, they will not fall only on the wise side of the ledgers, but will also see that the 'fool' is also bound up with them, in their own heart. It's a hard concept to come into contact with for most. Most will read only through one eye, the good eye for themselves and the bad eye on everyone else, thinking again 'in their heart' that exactly NONE of the bad or dire Words have any 'personal applicability.'

God will show any reader both the life and the application of DIRE WORDS, and such will even be led to see THE LIFE in the DIRE Words, laid upon themselves personally. No natural or carnal man can read that way. It's just not possible. And again in this way the Word is in fact inerrant, even predicting what will happen to such readers, where they will land, what 'tone' their bell will toll. It's quite fascinating actually.

Don't worry, I didn't call him that. I am merely exploring the rules of logic and checking for the "contradiction" you claim. Like I said earlier, if you mean "opposite workings", I am in agreement - I just don't see a logical contradiction here. Firstly, concluding that Paul was a raging hypocrite is a logically consistent conclusion which throws up no contradiction at all - unless you have already presupposed the premise that he isn't one. And for the record, I don't believe he was one - but we're discussing inerrancy and hence contradictions in Scripture and I'm pointing out that this doesn't throw up a logical contradiction. But that point was merely for argument,

Ah, no, it is in fact a DIRECT SURFACE CONTRADICTION. One can not be a Holy Apostle and simultaneously OF HIMSELF be the chief of sinners.

So, that is in fact a fact on the table to deal with. One can choose to IGNORE the contradiction, or dig to the bottom of the matter to see how that conflict is resolved.

So, I could consistently hold that Paul was a moral failure, that he preached others not to be as him and that he wasn't hypocritical in preaching so, without any logical contradiction.

And I would say it would be quite foolish to either heed or follow such men.

Again, how are we using the term "caused" here? If it's on the lines of the Word being a provocative cause to Satan's actions, then I am in agreement with you.

That is exactly the resolution of that conflict. Paul knew, understood and taught that the above is in fact the 'inner conflict' that we all to the last man come to deal with 'internally.' It's the most important principle there is to engage as an inerrant working FACT. Those who can not bring forth the fruit of honesty remain as blindmen to a certain extent, covering up what is meant to be exposed and DAMNED within themselves.

In short, the eternal damnation Sword is meant to be brought into our own hearts to engage our WORKING ADVERSARY therein.

The Word again is INERRANT in being ever and always 'against' that working and worker. The Words on the page are meant to move us into the BATTLE ZONE. The Words themselves without truthful spiritual engagements are just that, black on white.

Inerrancy at that point of engagement becomes a much different animal.

enjoy!

s

 

[ivdavid]

smaller,

All my queries have been sufficiently clarified, thank you. I guess we've been mostly saying the same 'inerrant contradictions' with 'variations'. Where we have not concurred completely, I see further differences in semantic interpretation than in core beliefs - and I prefer not to lose our clarity gained so far in pursuit of such trivialities that would add no more to the truth. Perhaps, as Grazer has suggested, we could now try and discuss one common working definition for the term 'inerrancy'.

As stated earlier, I've understood "inerrancy" to mean that Scripture, in its original texts, interpreted as God wills it, is both consistent within itself and with the observations from the real world without any logical contradictions, having made provisions for figures of speech, reported falsehood, variant selection of quotes etc.

 

[smaller]

Duly noted and agreed. And thank you for a civil discourse!

s

 

[dadof10]

Perhaps a more basic question needs to be asked. What do we mean by inerrancy?

It means exempt from error or infallible. I believe that Scripture is exempt from error, even though written by fallible human beings. God kept the divine authors from error while writing as a singular act of Grace. Every idea that is conveyed, is the actual breath of God and is, therefore, reliable and accurate, even perfect. Every word written is exactly how God wanted it to be written without exception. The copies that are handed down to us are accurate and also inerrant because the Holy Spirit guided their final transmission. I believe that MOST of the translations we have today are accurate and faithful to the original (HS guided) manuscripts. It is our interpretation that is fallible, not the books themselves.

 

[ivdavid]

I completely believe the bible is given to us by God, written by humans guided by the holy spirit. That to me though, does not mean the bible is completely contradiction and difference free because it just blatantly isn't. Smaller has given some examples of some. I don't buy the argument that the differences are only apparent because I'm sinful and don't know how to read properly.

If you've been following the last few posts between Smaller and myself, you'd see that Smaller cites how Scripture throws up a "working of opposites" and that too, quite intentionally - while not being logically contradictory. When you use the word "contradiction", do you use it in this sense of a "paradox" or is it in the sense of a logical fallacy? If it's the latter, could you provide some instances which do not already have alternate explanations given to them.

Also, when you say that you don't buy the argument that there is a lack of understanding on our part over the apparent inconsistencies, is it that you don't buy it as the final undeniable conclusion or is it that you don't buy it as a possibility itself? If it's the latter, why?

 

[Grazer]

If you've been following the last few posts between Smaller and myself, you'd see that Smaller cites how Scripture throws up a "working of opposites" and that too, quite intentionally - while not being logically contradictory. When you use the word "contradiction", do you use it in this sense of a "paradox" or is it in the sense of a logical fallacy? If it's the latter, could you provide some instances which do not already have alternate explanations given to them.

Also, when you say that you don't buy the argument that there is a lack of understanding on our part over the apparent inconsistencies, is it that you don't buy it as the final undeniable conclusion or is it that you don't buy it as a possibility itself? If it's the latter, why?

I have been reading the discussion between you and smaller. The response you quoted was put before your exchanges. It's as a result of what smaller has put that I asked whether we need to define what we mean by inerrant.

According to the dictionary, inerrant means incapable of being wrong. In order to determine if something is wrong you need to determine what is right. Regarding being incapable, God used humans to write the bible and I've put earlier that inspired doesn't mean dictated (not to me anyway) so mistakes and differing accounts have occurred. Whether these count as contradictions or paradoxes I'm not sure, what bracket would you put the 4 differing accounts on how found the tomb empty in? There's also the reported differing accounts between 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings compared to 1/2 Chronicles but I must admit I don't know much about where precisely they differ (working on studying that)

As for the last bit, this is a retort I've often seen when inerrancy is discussed. It's usually the literalists who use this approach. I've often found it as an excuse not to address the points raised. Certainly not something that can be applied to you.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[ivdavid]

According to the dictionary, inerrant means incapable of being wrong. In order to determine if something is wrong you need to determine what is right.

Tell me if this crude on-the-fly illustration works, else I'll draw up another one -

Supposing I gave my brother $10 to purchase some items for me, and I personally know it wouldn't cost more than $5 - when he returns only $3 to me I know that I have received the "wrong" amount though I do not know what the "right" amount is.

The Presupposition here is Premise 1: Items cannot cost more than $5.
The Observed Fact is Premise 2: I have only $3 returned.
A logical contradiction or an inconsistency has arisen in the above system of premises.
The conclusion is that the returned amount is "wrong" and that this transaction is not inerrant - even though I do not know what the "right" amount is.

However, I could demand for the bill and let's assume the bill totalled $4.50[The Absolute Fact is Premise 3: Items cost $4.50] - and I can now arrive at the "right" amount to be returned[The Inference is Premise 4: The returned amount should be $5.50] and then arrive at the same above conclusion - that the returned amount is "wrong" and that this transaction is not inerrant.

So, I would say that in order to determine if something is wrong, determining what is right is one possible approach. Checking for logical consistency is another. Determining what is right is the easy to-the-point approach, and must be employed wherever possible. It guards us against the possibility of wrong presuppositions and corrects them, if any - I could demand for the bill and see that it totals $7 because of some unexpected inflationary costs, which would then prove my presupposition wrong and uphold the conclusion that the returned amount was "right" and that the transaction was inerrant.

However, we find that there are various claims of what the "right" doctrinal interpretation is - and in such cases, employing the logical consistency approach works. Where we might find 2 logically consistent but mutually exclusive doctrines, we'll have to adopt a more fundamental guiding principle - such as choosing the doctrine which serves to give all glory to God alone as opposed to the doctrine which doesn't. But if we are unable to come to such a conclusion in unity, either through lack of our own understanding or due to our inability to courteously/honestly work towards a conclusion - we must still put our faith in God that He is able and sufficient to make His people stand and not faint.

Regarding being incapable, God used humans to write the bible and I've put earlier that inspired doesn't mean dictated (not to me anyway) so mistakes and differing accounts have occurred.

Yes, I agree that inspired doesn't mean dictated. Inspiration need not even require the writer to be aware that he is being used to bring forth the Word of God that He would preserve for all future generations - it could have been just a feeling of elation into a poetry of praise, or simply concern for a local church to whom one writes a letter of guidance.

And yes, humans are quite fallible and incapable and are not to be trusted to bring forth inerrant work by themselves - and here's where we differ. Why do you presuppose that God isn't capable of bringing forth logically consistent matter through very fallible human writers - He could make a donkey convey His words inerrantly! And here's where we proceed to the specifics of inerrancy.

For instance, Matthew mentions 2 demon possessed individuals in gadarenes while Mark and Luke mention 1 - I wasn't there and I don't know if there weren't actually 3 demon possessed individuals there - but I do know that there isn't any logical inconsistency between each of their reports. The logical contradiction arises only if Matthew had mentioned it as 2 and Mark,Luke had mentioned it as only one - or if we, the readers today, were to presuppose that God had actually inspired Mark,Luke to report the 2 and they mistakenly left out 1. God could have intended only Matthew to record the observed 2 while not necessarily impressing upon Mark,Luke to focus on both the demon possessed people, rather on just one of them. Nothing went "wrong" here then and inerrancy can be upheld.

Similarly with the resurrection accounts.

Whether these count as contradictions or paradoxes I'm not sure, what bracket would you put the 4 differing accounts on how found the tomb empty in?

I have this book titled "The life of Christ in stereo" by Johnston M. Cheney - and though I haven't checked each and every line's veracity, whatever I've checked so far seems to fit. There are no logical contradictions between the 4 accounts there, though there are variant observations. As one of the articles of the inerrancy statement I quoted earlier puts forth - variant selection of material in parallel accounts are not indicative of errancy - since inerrancy only checks what is false and logically contradictory - and perspectives from varied vantage points are not themselves false. Smaller has been quite persistent on a similar point - that rote exactness to each writer's entire scenario is not a requirement for inerrancy. The writer could focus on just a part of his scenario, be truthful and consistent in that and inerrancy is upheld.

 

[wayseer]

As a Secretary takes dictation from her/his boss, the message from the boss is delivered, it is the pen of the Secretary but the words of the boss, that does not make the document of the secretary.

Sorry - don't subscribe to the 'dripping quill' theory.

Everyone has a tendency to look at the Bible as "a book" when in fact, it is many books written by several authors on the same main subject... and of all those books by many authors you will not find one contradiction in the message of the Bible, all contradiction found in it is not the book but mans interpretation of it...

I can find heaps of contradictions.

You cannot, will not find 3 books today on any subject by 3 different authors and not find contradiction in their books...

... which appears to contradict your statement about no contradiction is the Bible.

Nothing can stand up to the accuracy of the bible.

Another contradiction.

(and by the way, I saw someone here say people think the KJV is 100% accurate, that is not fact, there are not flaws in the original language, but in translation, the men that wrote the bible were inspired, the men that made any of the translations were not)

Goobly gook - we have no original texts.

 

[wayseer]

I don't think I have anything further to add to this thread. The trumpet can't speak with an uncertain sound.

What the Word of God provides is certainty.

Jesus suggested those seeking certainty should look to themselves before making such statements.

 

[wayseer]

Perhaps a more basic question needs to be asked. What do we mean by inerrancy?

An even more basic question is - why the need for certainty?

 

[smaller]

For instance, Matthew mentions 2 demon possessed individuals in gadarenes while Mark and Luke mention 1 - I wasn't there and I don't know if there weren't actually 3 demon possessed individuals there - but I do know that there isn't any logical inconsistency between each of their reports. The logical contradiction arises only if Matthew had mentioned it as 2 and Mark,Luke had mentioned it as only one - or if we, the readers today, were to presuppose that God had actually inspired Mark,Luke to report the 2 and they mistakenly left out 1. God could have intended only Matthew to record the observed 2 while not necessarily impressing upon Mark,Luke to focus on both the demon possessed people, rather on just one of them. Nothing went "wrong" here then and inerrancy can be upheld.

There are Perfectly Logical Ways to find out why these accounts vary, the above being one of the first ones I dealt with to find out 'why' there were these differences.

It is one thing to claim 'inerrancy.' It is quite another to understand the variations.

Will give a brief example, which I've shown at this site prior. And once the 'pattern' is seen it is quite amazing and the differences are also likewise amazing.

Matthew provides that there were TWO possessed with devils. His account notes the location as the Gergesenes.

Gergesene transliterates generally as 'dweller on clayey soil.'

If one understands association constructs, they will also understand that the terms themselves are similies and parables, even though the events themselves were literal events. These same types and patterns are written throughout the text.

So, for example, how many 'men' were in the body of the man possessed? In Gods Eyes, there were TWO. The man himself and the children of the devil who speak as 'one man' of sin, even though there were stated to be as many as 12,000 demons therein. They are all 'one family.

Luke accounts the man from Gadarenes.

After the man was divided from those devils by the Living Word of God, he came to his 'right mind.' Every note of these matters is significant in their deployment. Right is also an associate term.

It is not then that the literal event was not literal. But there are a superabundance of 'associative' terms deployed therein.

The meaning of Gadarenes you ask?

"REWARD AT THE END."

The Divine Showing in this matter will be obvious to any child of God.

And they will see inerrancy through other avenues of understandings in the arena of assocation.

They will be guaranteed NOT to see if only seeing through literalist eyes.

These same patterns underscore every account in the text and even in present life.

The 'keys' to unlock these associations are also stated outright in many places. But they are intentionally kept from understandings in the literalist/natural senses.

s

 

[Grazer]

More from Peter Enns;

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/11/inerrancy-i-think-someone-forgot-to-tell-the-bible/

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrowell]

Originally Posted by rrowell
Everyone has a tendency to look at the Bible as "a book" when in fact, it is many books written by several authors on the same main subject... and of all those books by many authors you will not find one contradiction in the message of the Bible, all contradiction found in it is not the book but mans interpretation of it...

I can find heaps of contradictions.

Show me one and Ill show you miss interpretation.

Originally Posted by rrowell
You cannot, will not find 3 books today on any subject by 3 different authors and not find contradiction in their books...

... which appears to contradict your statement about no contradiction is the Bible.

You could have written the song "twist and shout"...

to make myself more clear and harder for you to twist, you cannot find 3 books by 3 different authors other than the bible, on a same subject, and not find contradiction in them.

Originally Posted by rrowell
Nothing can stand up to the accuracy of the bible.

Another contradiction.

How can there be contradiction in a single one sided statement, your reply to this is simply ridiculous. again, show me contradiction in the bible and I'll show you misinterpretation

Originally Posted by rrowell
(and by the way, I saw someone here say people think the KJV is 100% accurate, that is not fact, there are not flaws in the original language, but in translation, the men that wrote the bible were inspired, the men that made any of the translations were not)

Goobly gook - we have no original texts.

Nope, according to you the bible is just all made up, fiction, you have clearly made that point, you don't belong on this forum.

 

[for_his_glory]

There is only one way to know if there are any mistakes penned into that which is Gods word (Bible). Did God not say prove His word that it will not come back void, but sets out to do that which God wants to accomplish in us. Prove is the key word here as God wants to reveal himself to us by His Spirit who guides us into all truths of what God has already said.

 

[wayseer]

... according to you the bible is just all made up, fiction, you have clearly made that point, you don't belong on this forum.

I have made no such comment.

 

[farouk]

There is only one way to know if there are any mistakes penned into that which is Gods word (Bible). Did God not say prove His word that it will not come back void, but sets out to do that which God wants to accomplish in us. Prove is the key word here as God wants to reveal himself to us by His Spirit who guides us into all truths of what God has already said.

Isaiah 55.11 is a great verse, yes.

it's interesting how it expresses the power of the Word of God in relation to the rain and snow and the cycle of rivers and watering and harvests.

 

[wayseer]

The whole concept of biblical inerrancy and infallibility are recent inventions - the Patristic Fathers had no need for such ideas.

Inerrancy grew out of the Enlightenment and the Reformation - just as education and the printing press were beginning to make texts and books available to increasing numbers of the population - well, in the West at least.

But education brings with it dangers. People inevitable start asking questions. And it was questions that bought about the increase use of doctrine a means of silencing the questioner - a process of 'killing softly'. The same tactic is used by the Taliban where the recent shooting of a teenage girl in the Swat Vally highlighted the dangers of that a desire for education can bring.

Thus the doctrine and inerrancy and infallibility - not the same thing - were born. Only the Church could accurately explain the biblical texts because it too cornered the market on 'inspiration'. Thus the Holy Spirit was confined to the canon of scripture. In other words, the biblical texts where used to define the biblical texts. A good example of circular thinking. And if anyone thought outside the circle they were quickly silenced - one way or another - to the point of suggesting that such people don't 'belong on this forum'.

So, how then do we, who can both read and reason, 'explain' that which we read? The process comes down to hermeneutics - the art or science of interpreting the Bible.

Hermeneutics is not exegesis - which is an elaboration on some text i.e sermons. But one cannot do exegesis without hermeneutics. And we all use hermeneutics whether we know it or not. We all apply some aspect by which we can interpret that which we read.

Hermeneutics, unlike inerrancy, was used by the Patristic Fathers which lead to different 'schools' of thought. The main ones centered on Alexander, which adopted a allegorical reading of text, and Antioch which developed a literal reading.

But we have come a long way since then. There are any number of recognized hermeneutical methods. The point I wish to establish is that to claim biblical inerrancy one must forego hermeneutics and accept what the Church tells us to accept. If we accept that the biblical texts are the revelation of God - the unveiling of that which was otherwise hidden - then we perhaps might accept that there is really nothing 'natural' about theology - revelation it is not readily explainable and we would be wise to use all the tools with which we are equipped to make sense of that which guides our life.