This is why that potential error is not early in the list of those errors which I typically bring up in discussions with people who believe in inerrancy.
That simple error about the staffs is one I discuss with inerrancy believers first.
After all, it only takes one error to disprove inerrancy.
THE claim is, He did. It was inspiring.
God inspired Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. God did not make Moses inerrant in that task.
God inspired Peter to lead the early church. God did not make him inerrant in that task.
God inspired the writers of scripture. God did not make them inerrant in that task.
God does not turn people into puppets, dancing to strings.
God showed up in Jesus. God did not make him inerrant in that task?
[That’s rhetorical, as an excellent instance of errancy came to mind.]
In his recorded conversation with Peter Williams, Ehrman brought up the familiar discrepancy between the two stories of the death of Judas Iscariot. Now, since the later chapters of Matthew’s gospel seem to have a lot of detail indicating a source in the priestly circles, I go along with Matthew and take the Acts account to be Luke repeating a tale he was told, with an element of truth (about a purchase of a field) but also some inaccuracies. It’s a matter of judgement, and concerns what is certainly a peripheral topic of no great importance to the Gospel message.
Colin Humphreys’ book “The Mystery of the Last Supper” gives a very thorough analysis of these issues and can be strongly recommended. He straightens everything out quite well by examining the different calendars in use.
I don’t know if “God showed up in Jesus” or if God showed up “as” Jesus. Or maybe another explanation.
Either way, or another way, equating the work of people, the writing of documents, with the perfection of God is an elevation of the documents not supported by or claimed in the documents themselves.
Jesus was the Word of God. The Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God. The Savior and the writings of people are quite different and we should not confuse them.
Aye Vance, but 400 years after the Enlightenment, people here are still trapped by words.
[Jesus Himself erred in healing the guy with no eyes; it took Him two goes!]
Words are imperfect descriptors, but they are often what we have.
And the truth shall set you free.
I thought I was cryptic Vance!
What’s the connection?
There is an alternative view of that story, which is one of my favorite miracles.
Instead of revealing an error by Jesus, it is more likely to be a revelation to us of the process of bringing something whole.
It reminds me of my trip to the eye doctor in the USAF back around 1974. The doctor held a lens in front of my eye and said “how does this look?” Then he held another and asked if it was better.
The miracle, and the process Jesus took, revealed that Jesus was altering the man’s physical attributes.
I don’t see that as an error at all, but as a generous revelation so that we might better understand the power and methods of God.
To relate this to the topic of the thread, we should note that God did not write the scriptures. People, fallible people, wrote the scriptures. They are not inerrant. They are not infallible. Yet they are valuable.
Bruce Metzger described it well:
“In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
This material may be protected by copyright.
By the way, isn’t this process Jesus took to bring the man’s eyes to functionality something like the process that God used in evolution? Different things were tried. Some failed and died. Others succeeded and thrived.
After you do a better job and heal someone of blindness in one go, I’ll listen to your criticism of Jesus for the way he chose to heal this man.
It’s not a criticism. It’s one of the many examples that He was fully human. It adds to the credibility of the story.
That’s too contrived for me Vance. Like God being involved in evolution.
Evolution led us to where we are.
I am amazed that you think God was not involved.
How could the Creator not be involved?
I’m sure He is in His immanence. But obviously not by intervening.
He could. Evolution could not.
Could not what? Could not not be involved?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.