Authority of Scripture

[Guest shiloh357]

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

So, God can't spell?  And the bold face is a man-made criteria.  You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain.

 

clb

 

Complete nonsense.    When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies.  Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance.  It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God.

[a-seeker]

Since the bible actually allows for differences in beliefs on some topics then anything non-essential is open to have different beliefs without it being a problem. If you disagree then you are questioning the integrity of the bible and therefore questioning God's integrity!

 

 

But we are not talking about non-essential doctrines.   We are talking about the the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the biblical record and that is not a non-essential issue.  If the Bible is just true when I need for it to be true, I am defying the Bible's own claims to inerrancy and challenging its integrity and thus by extension, God's integrity, since He si the one who inspired it.

 

 

 

 

You are the only one with a Need-based belief.  You accuse me of believing only certain doctrines which I need to be true.  I have refuted that claim, 100%, hands down.  I have cited numerous examples of how my convictions are based on evidence, not needs, and numerous examples of how your belief in inerrancy is based on need, not evidence.

 

You need the Bible to be 100% true. You have said it; said that if the Bible is not 100% true then how can we be sure about any of it--how is that not a screaming example of a need-based conviction!?!  Let me put it this way, suppose I am a Muslim and you point out an error in the Koran and I say, "well, that can't be an error".  You say, "why not?"  I say, "because if that is an error, how do I that Allah is one is not an error?"  Would you say, "Good point"? Or would you scorn the operating logic which is emotional not rational?

 

You point to the Bible's own (supposed claim) to be 100% true; of course, you simply accept that claim which is one of the claims that should be tested if inerrancy is to remain standing at the end of the day.

[a-seeker]

 

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

So, God can't spell?  And the bold face is a man-made criteria.  You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain.

 

clb

 

Complete nonsense.    When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies.  Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance.  It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God.

 

 

 

Sir, please explain to me how else I am supposed to interpret the following:

 

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

I mean, if by original you mean the original first copy, and not the actual paper that Paul's pen touched, you need to be clearer.  No one would read that any other way than to suppose you thought Paul could've misspelled something.  Good grief.  You just said it was fine if Paul misspelled a word.  You believe that every jot and tittle is inspired, which I think would include spelling.  So naturally I asked whether God can spell.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

So, God can't spell?  And the bold face is a man-made criteria.  You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain.

 

clb

 

Complete nonsense.    When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies.  Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance.  It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God.

 

 

And who decides that only errors of substance matter?  And who decides what is and is not substantial?  Are the number of angels at the tomb a matter of substance or not?  Why?

 

clb

[OakWood]

An example of a Biblical error that is not actually an error

 

²¹ Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; ²² even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. ²³ But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

 

Leviticus 11

 

At first glance these verses suggest that insects have four legs when any biologist will tell you that insects have six legs. This in itself is not a problem because only in modern times have we declared that insects must have six legs.

However the real problem lies in the counting of the legs. Do grasshoppers, locusts and beetles really have only four legs? We know that they have six (or so we think). Yet God here appears to have made a mistake (as any mocker or Atheist will point out). In fact, I've heard these same verses used by Atheists to discredit the Bible.

 

What we are really dealing with here is a matter of semantics and how we define what a leg is. Many species of insects do indeed only walk on four legs. In the case of grasshoppers two of their six limbs are used for chirping and not for walking on or sitting on. So if they are not used for walking on - should we really be calling them legs?

The Jews were not stupid. If they had never seen a grasshopper before then God would  have no need to mention them? So if the Jews knew what a grasshopper looked like they would have probably known how many legs it had. In their minds it had four so they would have had no confusion with understanding  what Leviticus 11 was telling them.

Only today do we think of all six appendages on a grasshopper as being called legs because that is how scientists have defined them for us.

[a-seeker]

I had to go back again and carefully read and re-read Genesis chapter 2 in order to even attempt to figure out what is claimed to be a contradiction.  The reason I didn't address this "contradiction" is because it is so absurd, I had trouble seeing it.  It is not saying in Genesis chapter 2 that God is still creating animals and then bringing them to Adam one by one to name them.  The very notion anyone gets that out of the passage is so unbelievable, it is hard for me to lower myself to such a level to address such a thing.  In other words, I am to seriously think that in Genesis chapter 2, God creates a lion, and brings it to Adam to name.  Then he creates a giraffe and brings it to Adam to name, etc.  That is plain crazy.  These animals were already created.  It is only noting that they were created by God and brought to Adam.  There is such a thing as common sense here, and you have to look at what is meant, not the way it appears on the surface.  In this case, I don't even think it looks that way on the surface, unless one is trying to create a contradiction when none exists. 

 

 

I despise pedantry but I will have to be pedantic.  The discrepancy is more obvious in the Hebrew.  Hebrew has a way to say, "and the Lord God HAD made every bird and beast".  That is, it has a precise way of referring to past actions.  That is not what is used here.  It clearly says that the Lord God "made" (i.e. NOW) the birds and beasts.

 

an analogy: suppose I told this narrative:

 

"I was a farmer and I saw that my stocks were low for the upcoming winter; then I planted seeds; but the crops were bad; then I went to my neighbor and he said he would support me."  When would you suppose I planted the seeds?  Before or after I saw my stocks were low?  After.  Nothing would lead you to suppose that I had planted seeds.

 

The Hebrew grammar is the same.  the tense it uses has up to this point ALWAYS indicated an action being done there and then, not in the past.  In Genesis 2.8 your translation will say, ".......he placed the man he had formed"  or "whom he formed".  The reason is that the Hebrew is very clear that God is acting on an object ALREADY created.  

 

Once more:  If all we had were Genesis 2.4 onward, NO ONE WOULD SUPPOSE 2.19 REFERRED TO ANIMALS ALREADY MADE. If all we had were Genesis 2.4 onward, we would have convictions totally different from what we would have if all we had were Genesis 1.  Tell me that if all you had were 2.4 you would conclude the earth was made in 7 days!  There are simply too many discrepancies to dismiss me (and another-poster) as idiots for asking questions about these passages.  Tell me, only reading 2.4 onward, you would immediately conclude that the first plants were made BEFORE Adam!

 

Now I (and I believe another-poster) are perfectly ready to hear solutions.  But they have to be GOOD solutions.  I am not going to latch on to any proposal simply because its agenda is to make the two accounts sequentially consistent.  Thus far I have met ZERO good solutions.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

An example of a Biblical error that is not actually an error

 

²¹ Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; ²² even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. ²³ But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

 

Leviticus 11

 

At first glance these verses suggest that insects have four legs when any biologist will tell you that insects have six legs. This in itself is not a problem because only in modern times have we declared that insects must have six legs.

However the real problem lies in the counting of the legs. Do grasshoppers, locusts and beetles really have only four legs? We know that they have six (or so we think). Yet God here appears to have made a mistake (as any mocker or Atheist will point out). In fact, I've heard these same verses used by Atheists to discredit the Bible.

 

What we are really dealing with here is a matter of semantics and how we define what a leg is. Many species of insects do indeed only walk on four legs. In the case of grasshoppers two of their six limbs are used for chirping and not for walking on or sitting on. So if they are not used for walking on - should we really be calling them legs?

The Jews were not stupid. If they had never seen a grasshopper before then God would  have no need to mention them? So if the Jews knew what a grasshopper looked like they would have probably known how many legs it had. In their minds it had four so they would have had no confusion with understanding  what Leviticus 11 was telling them.

Only today do we think of all six appendages on a grasshopper as being called legs because that is how scientists have defined them for us.

 

 

Forgive me, I didn't read your explanation of the problem...I will later.  I've emboldened what interests me at this moment.

 

I would say "No".  They don't point to this to discredit the Bible; rather, the teaching of Inerrancy has provided the room to discredit the Bible.  If we dropped inerrancy and approached the Bible simply as an historical document, employing responsible historical methodology, we would do a much better job of defending certain tenets of the faith--as it turns out, the facts of the Bible that pass muster happen to be the MOST impacting.

 

clb

Edited August 19, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Openly Curious]

I couldn't agree with you more Shiloh.  Either one believes the record we have been given or they don't.  You can't believe in the God of the Bible and then turn around and fight against the God of the Bible for that is the true character of the atheists.

 

That is an empirical claim.  For it to be true then I would have to be lying when I said the Bible contains errors but Jesus is the risen Lord.  I am not lying.  I believe both.  Empirically you are wrong.

 

Atheists do not believe in God yet oppose the Bible.  They simply do not believe in God.

Well you can meditate all day long on the "origins" of donuts too. 

But until you visit the donut bakery you'll lack "empirical knowledge" of donut "creation". 

You either believe in the "evidence" of the Creation itself or you don't.

That makes no sense to me.  You made a claim that "either one believes in the record or they don't".  Now I assume you meant "all of the record...".  To refute that I would need to show only one person who didn't believe in inerrancy, but still believed in Christ.  There is me, and all those who acknowledge the infallibility of the Bible, which is different.  Ergo your claim is proven false.  Had nothing to do with doughnuts or origins.

 

clb

I didn't expect you would understand it. I stutter to think how much of a Bible you would have left if you tore and ripped out everything you thought was in error. Would the only part that would be left be the parts dealing with the resurrection of Christ? There is such a thing as taking someone at their word by simple faith. Taking God at his Word is one of those things that takes simple faith. Have you read Hebrews 11 which is full of people in the OT who took God at his word or is that one of those pages you don't believe the record we've been given. You exhibit no faith in the written Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word that was from the beginning and to reject the Word is to reject Christ Himself wheater you acknowledge that truth and confess it or not. You exhibit no faith in the God of the Bible and it is evident within your words in this entire thread for you haveadmitted it over and over again. Everything that is in existence has came into being by the spoken Word of God from the beginning. So you go ahead and pick and choose what you want to believe but I would caution that road is dangerous.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

So, God can't spell?  And the bold face is a man-made criteria.  You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain.

 

clb

 

Complete nonsense.    When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies.  Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance.  It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God.

 

 

And who decides that only errors of substance matter?  And who decides what is and is not substantial?  Are the number of angels at the tomb a matter of substance or not?  Why?

 

clb

 

Errors of substance refers to errors that would impact inerrancy given the fact that inerrancy simply means, if the Bible says it happened, it happened.   The problem is that you are trying operate from a false definition of what inerrancy actually means.  You can look it up in any theology textbook and you will not find a definition of inerrancy that means "flawless perfection."   

 

Inerrancy applies to the accuracy of the biblical record.  It doesn't mean that the text is spotlessly perfect and flawless.  Inerrancy doesn't claim that physical text is written flawlessly.   It simply means that the substance of the text, the subject matter of the text, is recorded truthfully.  

 

So, copyist errors like spelling mistakes or adding an extra zero to the number of horsemen doesn't impact inerrancy, as the story presented did happen. A copyist error doesn't suddenly invalidate the entire claim made by the text.   If the text has the wrong number of horsemen  present at a given battle, it doesn't suddenly mean that the historicity Bible's record of the battle can be discarded as invalid.  It doesn't mean that there is a serious issue with the Bible's inerrancy.   Again, you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist simply because you don't possess the faith to trust God and His Word.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

So, God can't spell?  And the bold face is a man-made criteria.  You have selected what errors the Bible can and cannot contain.

 

clb

 

Complete nonsense.    When I speak of scribal errors like spelling errors, I am referring to the errors made by copyists, scribes who are working from copies.  Inerrancy only speaks to errors of substance.  It is clear that you don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   You are reaching for anything you can to paint the Bible as document full of contradictions that are irreconcilable and full of errors and in doing so you you diminish the Word of God.

 

 

 

Sir, please explain to me how else I am supposed to interpret the following:

 

 

We have enough copies to compare that we can deduce what was contained in the originals.   Even if the originals had spelling errors, that does not affect inerrancy in any way.   What effects inerrancy are errors of substance.

 

 

 

I mean, if by original you mean the original first copy, and not the actual paper that Paul's pen touched, you need to be clearer.  No one would read that any other way than to suppose you thought Paul could've misspelled something.  Good grief.  You just said it was fine if Paul misspelled a word.  You believe that every jot and tittle is inspired, which I think would include spelling.  So naturally I asked whether God can spell.

 

clb

 

I am sorry.  I forgot.   You have abandoned all commonsense and rational thinking in order to mount your little campaign to destroy faith in God's Word. I said "original."  I didn't say original first copy.   "Original copy" would be as nonsensical as referring to something as a "genuine replica."  Honestly, I think I was pretty clear about what I meant. 

 

Inerrancy speaks to the Bible's accuracy in its historical record.   Inerrancy doesn't speak to the human element involved in the writing of Scripture.   So spelling errors are inconsequential.  You are trying to applying a standard of spotless perfection of the physical text to inerrancy, which has nothing to do with what the doctrine entails. 

 

You don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy and so it really makes it impossible to have a decent discussion about it. It would be one thing if you had a handle on the concept and were arguing against inerrancy for what it really is, but you are arguing against what you THINK inerrancy is, and not the actual doctrine.   So really, before you can argue against it, you need to learn what the doctrine really entails.