Can I give your post a double heart
1 Like
Only with the woefully underutilized emoji options 
ā¦and Iām waiting for my 
from @AdCaelumEo too.
Just for youā¦
3 Likes
Yes I havenāt read that text lately. However, my overarguimg comment was aimed at your error language re the text.
I guess Iād have to review this whole thread to see how u define error ā¦ but that is too much work on this Sunday evening. 
If I understand this topic, inerrant means incapable of being wrong - if this is the case, I cannot see how anyone can argue for it. I think instead, that God is incapable of error or wrong, while human beings are incapable of avoiding error and wrong. When we discuss the OT, we can see countless examples when Israel committed offences, did things that they clearly knew were wrong (e.g. David), and Moses on many occasions told them they were stubborn and inclined to follow the bad practices of other nations, in spite of all that God did for them, and in spite of all that Moses could bring in leadership, their actions were just as Moses predicted.
Since the Bible deals with all such issues, it is reasonable to accept that various practices and errors are discussed - more to the point, how would Moses deal with a stubborn and backward nation, while bringing Godās message to them? Even now, with the Gospel and the Apostles testifying and teaching Christ Himself, we Christians have on many occasions committed wrongs and errors. Do we then say Christ was wrong, or that when we err, we show Grace at work. Surely not. But it is also true that anti-theists and anti-Christians can point to our errors, and blame Christ for such.
It is this that we call human nature, and why we seek salvation.
1 Like
The phrase āin heaven, on earth, and under the earthā was the first century way of saying āall creation.ā If we indeed think that Paul may have held to the common conception of the universe (which would have been geocentric by that point), then thatās a whole other discussion. The Scriptureās inerrancy is not to be judged on the basis of the mistaken notions the authors may or may not have held that they barely even hinted at in the text itself. There is no āerrorā here, just a colloquialism.
Besides, is it not true that Jesus will be worshiped everywhere? In heaven, on earth, and under the earth (if this is meant as Sheol/hell, I see no issue; all will bow the knee, even those in hell, on that glorious Day).
For Paul to operate within his own worldview does not make the Scripture untrue.
I have a question for you, by the way.
How can the Bible be infallible (i.e. true and trustworthy) but at the same time be errant (i.e. at points neither true nor trustworthy)? Correct me if Iām misunderstanding your position, but this strikes me as odd.
Thanks Jay, I basically say the same thing when I write about true myth in Genesis which bodies like Ans in Genesis try to turn into ārealā history.
Anyway, itās been a long day. Thanks again for your response.
1 Like
One last thing, if I may. I would be wary of calling anything in the Bible āmyth,ā even ātrue myth,ā simply because of Peterās words:
āFor we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.ā 2 Peter 1:16
Peter goes on to explain his encounter on the mountaintop and the transfiguration, and then to state that the prophetic word is āmore fully confirmedā than his experience. The Scriptures, essentially, trump his personal eyewitness testimony, because they attested to Christ and his works. These were not myths, but actual prophecies brought to pass by God.
Anyway. Have a good night.
Jay - it seems to be a first century idiom that is factually correct as well.
The text says Jesus has been exalted, so that every knee might bow. That includes the majority of the human race, who are currently dead, and only at the end will be raised. So where are they at the time of Christās exaltation that Paul describes? Mostly under the earth, as any archaeologist will confirm.
Now, if thereās a modern worldview that says when you bury people, they are not under the earth, it would be fairly greatly in factual error. āBut everybody knows Paulās talking about an underworldā¦ā Well, thatās an interpretation - like the belief that Paul must be talking about a moveable well in the desert even though much scholarship disagrees.
I am focusing on Moral Error for a few reasons:
-
It is impossible to characterize 'Flaws in Moral Instruction" as some kind of figurative narrative.
-
It is perhaps the most egregiously offensive aspect in the Bible, regardless of race, creed or nationality. Note: While some political or philosophical sub-groups of Islam might not find Biblical instructions for slavery offensive, it would still be true, as far as I know, that no other aspect of the Bibleās text offends a greater percentage of the Earthās population. If we can find something that offends a greater percentage, I will certainly be willing to revise my position.
-
I still havenāt touched ātextual flawsā revealed in comparisons of Kings (and Genesis) vs. Chronicles (or in comparisons of Ezra vs. Nehemiah). Iām sorting through those slices of chaos even as I type.
Good question.
I donāt think āimperfect and limitedā automatically means neither ātrue nor trustworthy.ā Jesus took on at least some of the imperfections and limitations and brokenness of humanity and he embodied truth and was the ultimate example of faithfulness. God limited his revelation in some ways by putting it in human words and human stories. And ultimately, it is God who is true and trustworthy, the Bible is one of his chosen vehicles for revealing himself. When we start ascribing divine attributes to the Bible, it makes me nervous. We donāt worship the Bible. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Bible, so we can worship God.
My favorite exploration of biblical authority is this one by N. T. Wright: How Can the Bible Be Authoritative originally published in Vox Evangelica.
1 Like
I was hesitant to bring this up, since George usually does such a āfineā job nitpicking the Bible (send me that heretic button! haha), but the text that seems most insuperable to me is Luke 2:2, which links the census of Quirinius to Jesusā birth. I have corresponded with the author of a respected commentary on Luke, and he agrees that, according to our present historical knowledge, this is in error. (Herod the Great died 4 B.C.; the census was A.D. 6.) Here is a discussion of the problem by Daniel Wallace, whose Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is a standard textbook in seminaries. The solution of most evangelical scholars at the moment is to throw up their hands and say that some future historical discovery may vindicate Luke.
As for me, I have a hard time with that āsolutionā to the problem. I think that Luke may have been drawing a parallel between Judah ben Hezekiah, a messianic pretender who led an uprising after Herodās death, and Judas the Galilean, another messianic pretender whose uprising against the census started the Zealot movement. Several prominent scholars believe that Judah ben Hezekiah, who dropped from view in 4 B.C., is the same man as Judas the Galilean. The difficulty with this is that it requires Luke to introduce a historical error in order to make a very esoteric point. That seems unlikely, so we are left with an obvious error ā¦ and wait ā for how long? ā for some future historical discovery to vindicate the doctrine of inerrancy. Perhaps, instead, we should reconsider our doctrine.
So, is inerrancy necessary? I donāt know. At the moment, since I havenāt really researched the question, Iām willing to live in the tension.
2 Likes
Ultimately, much of problem is in defining what inerrancy means. In casting around, I can across this article which is somewhat lengthy but well written on the subject, and pretty much goes along with my acceptance of the Bible as āperfect in respect to purpose.ā The Inerrancy of Scripture - C.S. Lewis Institute
1 Like
The end of your linked article includes this text:
āThe older term to express biblical authorityāinfallibilityāremains useful. Infallibility means that Scripture never fails in its purpose. The Bible makes good on all its claims, including its truth claims. Godās Word never leads astray. It is important to recall that language may be used for many different purposes, and not to state facts only. Inerrancy, then, is a subset of infallibility: when the Bibleās purpose is to make true statements, it does this too without fail. Yet the Bibleās other speech actsāwarnings, promises, questionsāare infallible too.ā
The Bibleās own understanding of truth stresses reliability. Godās Word is true because it can be relied uponārelied upon to make good its claim and to accomplish its purpose. We may therefore speak of the Bibleās promises, commands, warnings, etc., as being ātrue,ā inasmuch as they too can be relied upon. Together, the terms inerrancy and infallibility remind us that the Word of God is wholly reliable not only when it speaks, but also when it does the truth."
I donāt think this answers our questions at all:
Is the story of Adam and Eve simply to give believers āthe general ideaā ? Which general idea?
Is the discussion about the Firmament figurative? It could have been left out of Genesis without a peep of complaint!
Does Yahweh intend for the end of Slavery? Leviticus sets up the rules. In the New Testament, Paul writes as though the answer is to make sure slave owners are Christian.
If it wasnāt for the British Parliamentā¦ who knows how long this evil would have been promulgated on this Earth!
Why should we reconsider a doctrine so clearly deduced from the text of Scripture itself?
Iāve heard a couple of times now that the doctrine of inerrancy canāt be squared with the āphenomenaā of Scripture, that we ought to arrive at our doctrine by looking at what Scripture actually is (inductively) rather than what it says about itself (deductively). Make no bones about it: I donāt think we should ignore alleged contradictions and errors, but they shouldnāt impact our doctrine of inerrancy if said doctrine comes straight from the Bible anyway. To ālive in the tensionā does not require a rejection of inerrancy, only an understanding that now, we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now we know in part, but then we shall know fully, even as we are fully known.
I know of no person who holds to a robust doctrine of inerrancy who would claim to have solved all of the Bibleās problems. We are fallible interpreters, both of the Bible and of the historical/scientific information that attempts to discredit it.
The issue of slavery and social issues gets away a bit from inerrency, and into our relationship with government authority, which is also a difficult subject. My feeling is that Jesus was concerned with the state of the heart rather than the heart of the state, and while I have not really thought about it as relating to old testament writings, perhaps it was also the principle applied there also.
If the Bible is going to provide moral instruction on āworking on the Sabbathā (death penalty),
āhonoring the Sabbath at allā, and not eating pork ā¦ we either accept that humans could
have misunderstood what Godās intentions were ā¦ or not.
The usual procedure when finding something distasteful in the Old Testament is to argue that the New Testament rectified the situation.
Slavery is not one of those thingsā¦ because Paul just reinforces the same problematic interpretation that the Old Testament provides. In fact, then, Paul makes the situation even worse !!!
Paul had an opportunity to get it right! And, as far as Iām concernedā¦ he didnāt use the opportunity wisely.
So: Anyone who insists the Earth was made in 6 days, and Adam and Eve were created by means other than evolution ā¦ they are stuck with the acceptable nature of human slavery ā¦ as long as it isnāt Israelitesā¦