Pseudonymity and Inerrancy

Sure, consider Matthew 24:15 from the Holy Bible, God's Word, the ESV:

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

You can't miss that Christ attributes this statement to Daniel the prophet.

That is the one I knew off the top of my head. I will have to check for the Isaiah one. When I am not about to start work.

 

This is John the Baptist, not Jesus, but it's documenting a direct authorship...

This one is straight from Jesus, however...

And another...

 

Daniel David,

I have little problem dealing with your questions. I don't start with the presupposition that the bible is inerrant, thus why must these statements concerning "authorship" (I put these in quotes because you must answer a very difficult question about whether this is referring to the prophet as a person or whether this is simply referring the reader to the appropriate prophetic book. I seems a real stretch to force simple words of guidance to rest your answer to a big question against inerrancy.) be accepted without second thought? Because the books were written by human hands means that though they contain the word of God, they are not necessarily the exact words of God.

I will provide a counterexample:

Mark 1:2--"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;..." This is not in Isaiah, but is Malachi 3:1. So did Isaiah write the book of Malachi?

Grace and Peace, Danny

BTW, I hope that you know that your continuous flourishes of dismissal provide no weight to your arguments and in fact only offend your brothers and sisters. If you have a critique, then state it but don't pretend that 5th grade put-downs are helpful or desired by anyone who reads your posts.

 

Mark 1:2 is as much part of a composite saying, stemming as much from Exodus 23:20. It is further the essence of the message told in the latter chapters of the book of Isaiah. Compare Isaiah 40:3. I see no problem with the words used in Mal 3:1. It was very common of early writers to take the best expression of the intent of the message. It remains a proper message by the prophets.

Cheers,

Jim

 

First, great rebuttal to my answer. Deal with the others as well.

Second, I will pretend you didn't bring this passage up. I will do you a favor and try to save you some embarrassment. Look it up and see how people that embrace inerrancy handle the text. Hint: it has to do with the way the books were grouped.

Finally, I can't believe you are using the whole line about sinful man tainting the Scripture. How outdated and worthless of an argument is that?

It is an absolutely true statement that one's view of God determines one's view of inerrancy.

 

No it's not.

In some cases it is true, but it is not an "absolutely true statement" by any means.

 

Pastor Bob - 100%
Rev Joshua - 0%
...this is a recording.

I Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ...
If this might not be true, then...

...by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ,
then this part might not be true, then...

...which is our hope;
and this part might not be true.

 

There are other issues here, but the point of the quote is to identify John the Baptist. The thought is completed in verse 3, which is from Isaiah, not Malachi. I suppose if Mark had a obsessive-compulsive disorder, he might have been more precise in identifying the two pieces of the quotes.

 

First, great rebuttal to my answer. Deal with the others as well.

Second, I will pretend you didn't bring this passage up. I will do you a favor and try to save you some embarrassment. Look it up and see how people that embrace inerrancy handle the text. Hint: it has to do with the way the books were grouped.

Finally, I can't believe you are using the whole line about sinful man tainting the Scripture. How outdated and worthless of an argument is that?

It is an absolutely true statement that one's view of God determines one's view of inerrancy. </font>[/QUOTE]Daniel David,

My point in presenting a counterexample was not to forever provide an answer to inerrancy--anyone can see that inerrantists have an answer for every seeming contradiction. Whether those responses are plausible or not is another question. The casuistry required for answers such as the one in the above case are no more convincing to me than many others. I am guided by the principle that simpliest explanation is most likely, and in this case my principle renders your proposition is unlikely. I am constantly amazed at your responses where you in your state of gnosis seem to purport that everyone around you lacks your esoteric knowledge of all things true. I have read scholarship by inerrantists--for pete's sake I have a M.Div. with an emphasis in New Testament studies from a baptist seminary--so please don't give me your condesending returns about my ignorance. I can run with you any day of the week. Maybe it would be better if you would abandon your ignorant comments and stick to the issues.

Speaking of embarassment, I would like to point out two examples of your failure to understand my arguements. First, your off handed comment concerning "sinful man tainting scripture" was completely off. I did not mention sin at any point in the above statement. Instead, I would say that human finitude provides a much stronger case in such an example, but we are not speaking about what God could have done--it has to do with what He did do. As I (and I am not alone) see it, the evidence strongly hints that this is not a collection of writings by God but by people moved by God.

Second, when did I say that our view of God determined our view on inerrancy? Besides, I think that when it comes down to it we think very similarly about God. What we disagree about is how we know about Him. God is in no way limited by the way He is revealed.

We have gone very far afield in this interchange. A major question which needs to be addressed concerning our presenting topic is "without the theological presupposition of an inerrant scripture, why should one reject pseudonimity in certain books based upon the historical or literary evidence"? Of course our theological presuppositions are present, but what if they are critiqued by counterevidence, and as above dialogue has taken place, does this question ultimately matter for the construction of theology?

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

To say that the inerrantist presupposes inerrancy is not true. We presupposes that God has spoken. God is the one who said he cannot lie and therefore whatever God says is inerrant. However, to confuse that with a presupposition is not accurate.

Your question about rejecting pseudonymity on teh basis of evidence is flawed by a simple fact. The "evidence" is ultimately not conclusive in teh least. There is no valid reason to reject Isaianic authorship of everything that bears his name. A bias against supernatural prophecy is the only driving factor. So various reasons are concocted but when examined through unbiased lens, those objectives fall short. When the God who cannot lie says that a certain person authored a work, we should take his word for it rather than concocting evidence to teh contrary.

 

Pastor Larry,

If what you described is not a presupposition, then I would like to see your definition of one. You are exactly presupposing that God has spoken in a certain way, and contrary to evidence that in the very least is ambiguous to claim something as absolute quickly identifies your position as biased (and circular when the presupposition is used to dismiss the evidence without cause).

However, biases are not always bad. I would just like to hear an inerrantist admit that they are biased. I figure that I will be waiting for a long time, since the reason most struggle to uphold the doctrine is to avoid questions concerning the ground of theological authority.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

This one is straight from Jesus, however...

And another...

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh - one little problem for your position - the words of Jesus are not quoting the critic's "Deutero Isaiah", they are from the part attributed to the original Isaiah.

Isa 6:10
0 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
KJV

Isa 29:13
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
KJV

 

A presupposition is something that has no prior supposition. I told you in my post what the prior (pre) supposition was: That God is and that God has spoken. Inerrancy is a conclusion, an intermediate conclusion. (That is basic apologetic information.)

No I am not. I am presupposing that God is and that God has spoken. The question then is, How would God speak? Of what nature would the revelation of God take? The answer is (notice "answer" not "presupposition"): He speaks without error. I have contradicted no evidence and have used no circular reasoning.

I don't follow your reasoning. Biased about what?? The ground of theological authority is the revelation of God found in Scripture. I don't think there can be any serious question from the orthodox on that. If that is a bias, then so be it. I have no problem admitting bias. All of us are bias. The question is, Which bias should we have?

 

If the inerrancy of a book we call the bible is not presupposed, how can one move from God is and He speaks to the position that this book must be his inerrant word (note the caverous jump you make from God speaks inerrantly to the bible is inerrant). Why not take the simplest conclusion from your logic and leave it as it stands--God has spoken inerrantly through the incarnation. The ground of theological authority comes through its relationship to that revelation--the bible is secondary revelation and by no logical progression can it be proved as inerrant. It is only foundational for theological authority because of its manifestation of the truly inerrant word (and only an extreme skeptic would hold that it does not do so adequately). Inerrancy is a faith stance which must be presupposed to be held.

BTW, when I speak of circularity, I am referring to the dismissal of seeming contradictions through the claim that the bible is inerrant (this is the ground of the presenting discussion--can a book like 2 Peter be dismissed as not being pseudonomous on the ground of inerrancy). Its like presupposing that all persons that post on the BB are baptists and when Billy says that he is a Methodist other post-ers replying that he must be a baptist and not a Methodist because he is posting on the BB.

Pastor Larry, I love these debates we have from time to time. They deepen my understanding of your side of the issues and help to identify the counterpositions in my own thoughts. I hope that you find them benefical and enjoyable as well. In spite of our disagreement on the issues, I feel like we are kindred spirits in a wacky opposite kind of way.

Grace and Peace, Danny