Michael F. Bird (born 18 November 1974) is an Australian Anglican priest, theologian, and New Testament scholar.
Has an interesting you tube channel.
1 Like
Molly Worthen, who is no amateur when it comes to the history of evangelicalism, saw herself, if she were to convert to Christianity, going the Anglican route 
for those who know her story, thatās not the road God had for her
I have a hard time with this-maybe you can let me know more about it. I thought that the scribes would throw away a script if they made a certain number of errors (not that they didnāt let some through, but they felt that the wordsā exactness was very important). Iām still not comfortable with the pseudo -books, lumped under authors who didnāt write them. Thanks.
This is a very good one.
Hereās a link to a review in '18
Thanks.
Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy: A Review - Faith & Science Conversation - The BioLogos Forum
1 Like
ah the Bart Erhman inspired claimā¦this claim has already been demonstrated comprehensively by Daniel Wallace (as one of quite a number of scholars) to be completely falseā¦
The biggest qualification is that only the original autographs were inerrant. Think about this. The claim made by most conservative evangelicals (and, of course fundamentalists) is that biblical authority stands or falls with inerrancy. If the Bible contains any real errors it cannot be trusted. Then they admit every Bible that exists probably contains errors. Only the original manuscripts on which the inspired authors wrote can be considered perfectly inerrant
The problem with the above claim by the author of your article is that we know that the bible can be completely restored from fragmentsā¦many of which are not even written at the same time or by the same scribe. The reason that this is important is because it refutes any claim that what we have today are not an accurate reproduction of the original autographs! Daniel Wallace comprehensively explains the reasons why the above claim is false. I suggest individuals actually go and study Daniel Wallace research on this topicā¦he is a widely recognised world expert on it and has very damning refutations to the claims of Bart Erhman (a man who openly professes he is no longer even Christian) that are also put forward in Olsens article.
Sure Erhman is a great resource for proving the existence of the historical JEsus, however, I think its foolish for individuals to align with the other āthere is no Godā arguments of a man (Erhman) who denies that Christ is risen or that he is/was God incarnate. This article clearly does that and i find that very worrying as it leads individuals away from God.
Olsen is copnflating inerrancy with stuff like grammatical and spelling errors (which are what about 9 out of every 10 errors in the bible have been proven to be). This is a ridiculous attempt at applying spelling mistakes to research papers in order to say the research is false. Everyone knows that is utter nonsense even by todays academic standards. All it means is that grammar and spelling errors are in the research, it doesnt mean the research is wrong. We dont say that a news article about a murder is false because it contains spelling and grammatical mistakes. There are other ways of confirming the storyā¦such as other writers also documenting the narrative! (as is the case in biblical timelines such as the genealogies of the Old Testament supporting those in Matthew and Luke). Olsen may be far more educated than i am, however, his arguments here (like those of Erhman) are woefully deficient for a man of such a high level of academic achievement. I actually feel a bit ashamed for the academic community when i read stuff like what Olsen has written hereā¦he becomes a figure for mocking the intellectual ability of religious academics by atheists.
I am not a conservatire fundamentalist biblical innerrancy proponentā¦i am not worried by grammatical and spelling errors. The only words we know that were actually written by the finger of God are the following:
-
mene mene tekel parson
-
10 commandments
the above are absolutely inerrant, however, the rest will most definately have errors because they were written by men who are the offspring of a fallen Adam and Eve, heavily influenced by sin. It does not mean however, that the recorded words have histopricity or timeline errors. The internal consistency of the bible refutes any such claim.
Not sure you read or understood what Olson was saying. He is referring to the Chicago statementās wiggle phrases that essentially make its claims about inerrancy irrelevant. The focus is the ambiguity of the statement and while not addressed in detail in this particular article, how it is used as a tool to divide and make boundaries rather than something useful in furthering our understanding.
2 Likes
You are thinking of the Masoretic Text which was written in the 7th to 11th centuries CE and we donāt have any older manuscripts to compare. And it differs from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another problem being the original Hebrew texts (which we donāt have) didnāt have the vowels indicated which means there can be more than one meaning for a word.
Lee McDonald has several books on the development of the Biblical Canon that are good.
2 Likes
The problem with this argument is the vast majority of the fragments are dated hundreds of years after the fact. There are very few, and these are tiny fragments, in the earliest time period.
1 Like
Neither Augustine nor Luther held to inerrancy as modern fundamentalism does. Augustine, for example, thought the āsix days of creationā were a literary device for describing something that God did in an instant.
Also, an entire book has been written addressing what Luther meant by āinfallibleā, concluding that it does not mean āinerrantā as modern YECists define it.
Why do you keep repeating this lie? Youāve been told, and shown, repeatedly that it is a lie, yet you come back to it over and over!
It would not be amiss to conclude that it is a symptom of YEC.
True. That identification doesnāt show up until post-exile, which is why many scholars consider it to be something from Babylon.
Interestingly, it also fits how Jesus used the term when He told Peter, āGet behind me, adversary!ā
Iād be interest to know if he talks about the method of āteaching from contradictionā that rabbis used.
False dichotomy.
Iāll just note that you ignore the option of letting the text be what it is.
Which, as Iāve pointed out before, actually describes a night.
Anyone who claims to do textual criticism yet holds to the YEC definition of āinerrantā is lying. Itās a common lie; almost everyone who claims to hold to the āhistorical-grammatical methodā ignores the first half of that.
Ehrman lost his faith because he bought into the YEC lie that if there is one error then the whole Bible cannot be trusted.
The Incarnation is the key to faith, not your favorite doctrine.
2 Likes
Because āliteral historyā was not a genre Moses knew anything about, and we have no reason to believe that God would have put on a seminar to teach Moses about a genre that would have been meaningless to the people at the time.
Itās not ātwistingā at all, itās what the Sadducees and Pharisees recognized as well: Jesus claimed to be greater than the Law, greater than the Temple.
Second Temple Judaism regarded the Law as Truth, the Temple as Life, and adherence to them as the Way; Jesus throws all that to the side when He announced āI am the Way, and the Truth, and the Lifeā. That right there was a declaration that no longer did anyone come to the Father via Moses or the Law or the Temple; those were obsolete as of that moment.
Thatās not entirely true even in Hebrew, though as a general rule itās fine; the exceptions are the sort of things only Hebrew geeks would care about.
Circular reasoning: you define the text as being inerrant according to the YEC definition, then interpret the text according to that in order to support your claim.
False dichotomy, and since it is stated as an indirect accusation, also a lie that you have been repeatedly warned about.
According to YEC He definitely did, because the YEC position is that the Holy Spirit made Moses and the rest write in accordance with a modern worldview ā in fact one that arose from scientific materialism.
The ironic thing here is that you have said what every scholar believes including those who note that the scriptures are ancient literature that must not be read according to a modern worldview ā i.e. those who recognize that the opening Creation account was not written as history but as āroyal chronicleā and as temple inauguration and as polemic.
That one never gets old. As Iāve done before, Iāll quote one paragraph:
My experience teaching theology has been that more students give up belief in the Bibleās authority because they were taught it depends on absolute inerrancy (even in matters of cosmology and history) than because they are taught it isnāt inerrant. In other words, they discover for themselves the problems with inerrancy once they face the problems. Wouldnāt it be better to be totally honest with young people about the Bible so that they do not face a crisis of faith when they finally have to face up to its factual flaws (that even inerrantists admit but rarely tell people in the pews)?
That matches my university experience as well, and extends to evangelism: those who insisted in inerrancy drove people from Christ, those who acknowledged that the scriptures are ancient literature that had different standards acquired audiences.
Yep. As I pointed out to students I had the chance to help through their YEC-caused crisis, I donāt believe the Gospel because of the Bible, I believe the Bible because of the Gospel.
3 Likes
You are clearly obsessed with sin. if Paul was baptised in the Holy Spirit how could he be influenced by sin? You are showing a misconception the opposite to the idea that Sciripture is controlled by the Holy Spirit.
People are no more controlled completely by sin as Christians are controlled completely by the Holy Spirit. We have independent thought process dominated and controlled by no one (nothing) else. What we are not is infallible. The idea that we do things that we would not want to, has nothing to do with sin, more to do with practicalities and circumstance. Sometimes we cannot fathom all the possibilities or influences and the results are not as expected.
Original sin is a fallacy. Paul never proposed it as such. It is the misconstruing of part of a bigger explanatory argument. Until you get that into your thinking you will be forever stuck in a false view of both humanity and God.
Richard
i understand what he is sayingā¦the entire problem i am raising is that he is attempting to lead readers into believing that the inerrancy argument means one can ignore biblical statements related to things such as genealogies. This appears to give naturalism the amunition it needs to seep its ideas into Christianity with the claims of āscience saysā. Science is not the driver of belief in God. If you can find Gods revelation to us regarding the gospel in any scientific theory, im all ears.
i do not believe one can play games with intrinsic biblical doctrine when it is also supported by multiple sources. Examples i regularly give are the Flood and Sodom and Gomorah. These events are clearly taught as historical fact by Moses, Matthew, Luke, and the Apostle Peter. What is even more problematic is that Matthew and Luke claim to be recording Christās own words!
are you pentecostal? The statement above reminds me of their theology.
I am not sure of what your point is about the Holy Spirit controlling scripture. We are not robotsā¦so how exactly do you support any notion that the Holy Spirit controlled scribes who were sinful men/women?
Now before you attempt to answer the aboveā¦i think its important to read below
There seems to be conflation here between being saved and being sinless. I do not believe thats the right theology and heres whyā¦
Paul says, we walk boldly in before the throne and are judged righteous BECAUSE we are clothed in the robe of Christs righteousness. That is what justification is all about. The bible definitively teaches that all humanity has already been condemned to death as a result of Adam and Eves sin and also because we have become slaves to sin.
The solution to the wages of sin (Romans 6:23):
-
We are saved because Christ offers a free gift of salvation to us after having already paid the penalty. Those who do not accept that free gift are condemned to eternal death. What is now extremely important is that its only when one accepts the free giftā¦
-
We are judged sinless because, given Christ has already paid the price for us (ie justification = just as if i had died for my sin), we are then covered by his righteousness thus hiding our sinful carnal bodies and our debt is paidā¦or i suppose another way some put it is that we are washed clean (although this second one is a bit problematic because it is easy to take on the doctrine of āonce saved always savedāā¦which isnt true)
-
The thing to remember is that the Old Testament Sanctuary Service demonstrated that Israelites had to make atonement sacrifices on a regular basisā¦it wasnt just once and that was it for life. Individuals had to regularly confess their sins and offer new sacrifices. Paul says he died dailyā¦Corinthians 15:31 I assure you, believers, by the pride which I have in you in [your union with] Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily [I face death and die to self] Amplified Bible
That means even the converted Apostled Paul regularly suffered under the scourge of temptation and sinā¦he wasnt sinless at any time during his life even after he was converted!
I hope that makes sense in illustrating my theology on the notions of being saved vs being sinless. Humans are never sinlessā¦even those who are born again.
I believe that the bible teaches that Baptism is not a real physical transformation into a new sinless body the second we come up out of the waterā¦its a public witness of our comittment to Christ and our desire to take up the cross and follow Christ as well as a type/antitype illustration of us receiving our heavenly sinless and uncorrupted bodies at the second coming when the dead in Christ rise to meet those who are alive in the air with Him.
No
- have been talking too long with @St.Roymond
No it does not. That is just your warped reading of it.
I know your theology and it is based on a false assumption that humans are incapable of doing good unless they have accepted Christ. It is so clearly a false doctrine I wonder how any one can believe it unless they live in a commune or other isolation. The world is not corrupt. People are not all corrupt. There is good outside any religion let aloe Christianity.*
You have to remember that Paul was brought up a Jew, and Jews do not believe in free will or even chance. God is manipulative and controlling. He blames God for the Jews not seeing Christ , not the Jews themselves. The whole ethos of slavery and manipulation is down to Judaism. Christ told people ānot to sin againā. According to your theology that is impossible!
Christ also claimed that he only came for the sinners, implying that there were those who did not need Him., but you conveniently ignore that teaching.
Richard
I think the bible explains itself on your claim there Richardā¦
Romans 3:19 Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. 20 For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.
23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of Godās glorious standard. 24 Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins.
Then Paul tells us
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
AS i said, we are fortunate that from the foundation of the world, Christ had set in place a plan of salvation. After Adam and Eve sinned, he would make the ultimate atonement for sin according to the law. God himself would die for His own creation thus proving that Lucifers claims made during the heavenly rebellion, were false.
The beauty of the Old Testament Sanctuary Service is that it explains exactly how salvation works. It also explains that in the end, Satan will have the responsibility for all sin placed on him (the scapegoat cast out into the wilderness signifies this). This is why im such a proponent of the O/T Sanctuaryā¦understanding it is critical to understanding the gospel and how we are saved. That does not mean however, that we must be scholars of the O/T sanctuary to be savedā¦i have never believed that. Christ said that in order to be saved we need to become like little childrenā¦to simplify life.
I have a young daughter who reminds me every day of this. Everything she does is a wonderful adventure and she absolutely revels in just doing stuff (it doesnt matter what, its all so exciting to her). I think thats what Christ was referring to when he said unless we become like little children we can never enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3)
He is a New Testament scholar that has published in scholarly journals and written a few books. In the critical sphere, his scholarship is on the conservative end of the spectrum (conservative for NT scholars, not evangelicals of which I do believe he is oneā just not an American one).
The Jews
That doesnāt mean we have to sin. Only that we do.
But according to you , not every one.
Donāt you get it?
If we have to sin there is no culpability! Itās not my fault! I am only human!
ANd you have provided the best excuae of al! Itās not my fault! All humanity isins. I am just another one.
Not physical death! Spiritual death.
āleave the dead to bury their dead?ā
We choose Christ. it is not forced upon us or mandatory. It has to be otherwise it is a mockery.
You have made life into an unfair trial. There is just one way to survive it and if you donāt hear about it or beleive it? Tough! Burn in Hell!
Rubbish.
God value our relationships He does not demand or insist upon them. Why canāt you see past your biased, cruel and ungodly theology?
And I should care why?
Itās not Scripture. He is just another human being. I do not need human idols or opinions.
People here quote theologians as if they mean something. All they do is provide proof that someone else thinks like you (me. us etc)
Faith is personal, not corporate of popular, or even by authority. It is not about what āxā believes it is about what you (or I believe)
An argument or theology stand or falls by its own merit not by who proposed or believes it. That means The (former) Bishop of Durham, the Pope your local Pastor, me, or even St Paul.
Richard
Great read. Favorite part:
But even the strictest scholarly adherents of inerrancy kill that definition with the death of a thousand qualifications. Some who insist that you must be evangelical to be faithful to Scriptureās authority say inerrancy is consistent with biblical authorsā use of errant sources. In other words, they say, the Bible is nevertheless inerrant if it contains an error so long as the author used an errant source inerrantly.
The Bible inerrantly relays errant information. That is just comedy gold! But I think the author is unwilling to go the full monty or maybe describes infallibility in a way I disagree with.
Scripture, we all agree, is infallible in all that it teaches regarding God and salvation.
I would say God uses scripture to serve his intended purposes, the primary of which is salvation. The errors in the Bible donāt just extend to numbers, history and science. There are statements about God inside and salvation history that seemingly create friction with one another, science and history, or are morally problematic.
āInfallible,ā to me, means the Bible never fails in its main purpose which is to identify God for us, to communicate his love and his will to us, and to lead us into salvation and a right relationship with our Creator, Savior and Lord.
Would he agree the Bible is fallible in parts? When the Bible describes God throwing a tantrum and murdering bunch of people or sanctioning rape? When it teaches me in one instance God is jealous and avenging (but more merciful) to where he punishes children to the third and fourth generationā¦ but later authors like Ezekiel repudiate this? I think one can glean a big picture consistently through scripture. But Iām not sure infallible is a good word choice for this.
I think itās a move in the right direction (away from inerrancy) but itās trading one term for another, which dies the death of a 100 qualifications (as opposed to the āthousandā of inerrancy).
At some point āinfallibleā is going to reduce to the tautology: āthe true teachings in (or of) scripture are trueā and the term is useless.
The simple move of putting the onus on God using Scripture vs Scripture itself helps resolve this issue in my mind.
Scripture is ālife-givingā and āusefulā (2 Tim 3), not āinfallibleā or āinerrant.ā That should be the word we adopt.
You donāt have to care. Why should I care about your opinion? You are not scripture. I do not need human idols and opinions. What are you even saying? I only answered your question on who Michael Bird is.
He is a competent scholar with a doctorate in the field. That means he publishes in peer reviews journals and is well studied. It means his opinions are informed. That you donāt know who Michael Bird is suggests your theological views and knowledge of evangelical Christianity is not that informed. He is well known for people who dig into these issues, but it is a big world.
As I am sure you know, āScriptureā was written in other languages, by dozens of authors, in ancient worldviews thousands of years ago. Someone had to determine what books were scripture and which were not, someone has to reconstruct the earliest text, someone has to translate it, someone has to interpret it in light of its ancient context. What are you, a noob Christian armed with Sola Scripture and a Bible you think fell from heaven in English written just for you? We need scholars and Church tradition. There is no scripture without them. Be consistent.
As one who thinks sola scripture is self-defeating and a terrible view, theological tradition is of immense importance. This sounds like atheism logic. I can say: āPaul is just offering theology in his letters. By quoting Paul all you are doing is saying you agree with him. Anytime someone quotes the Bible or claims the NT is scripture, should I question them and ask why you are quoting the Bible as if it means something?ā
Sure, Paul is different from Bird in that Bird is offering interpretation of Paul as part of our sacred scripture. But even Paul recognized his humanity. He was careful to distinguish his own teachings from Jesus, something many who call the Bible āscriptureā today do not do.
Is that what you believe? Why should I care? (Not being mean but just throwing back what you already threw out). Faith is communal as well. We are social creatures and without a nurturing environment and likeminded believers, itās difficult for faith to blossom and grow after the initial infatuation wears off. The Eucharist, one of the most important things in Christianity is a communal meal or event.
Have you seen any of the Planet of the Apes movies? There is a part where Ceasar takes one stick and snaps it easily but then tries the same with many sticks and he canāt break them. His words: āApes together, strong. Apes alone, weak.ā
Do we need a scripture refreshers on all the communal aspects of faith and commands to build one another up? Your inner relationship with God is personal but Faith in general is about community.
Then critique his views instead of asking who he is. I agree with the rest with the added caveats that unless Paul is under inspiration writing what God wants him to at the moment or the Pope is speaking āex cathedra.ā Bird and other theologians and NT scholars would as well. Iām sure they understand that a lot of them disagree with one another. I mean, the book referenced above is five views. None of them can speak infallibly like the Pope and I doubt any would claim to.
Iām not sure what the issue is with quoting theologians or New Testament scholars though? @heymike3 may over quote his theological crushes at times but itās good that he is reading critical scholars and people with doctorates that publish in the field. Should we instead only listen to the opinions of amateurs on internet forums or the know-it-alls posting their views on the Facebook page of a local diner?
Iām surprised he didnāt want to get rid of Matthew as well since Ephesians seem to say the opposite of Jesus.
17āDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Ephesians 2: 14 For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us,15 abolishing the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,16 and might reconcile both to God in one body[f]through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.[g]
Vinnie
2 Likes