Inerrancy defined

FYI; From Barnes' commentary:
Jas 4:5
Verse 5. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain. Few passages of the New Testament have given expositors more perplexity than this. The difficulty has arisen from the fact that no such passage as that which seems here to be quoted is found in the Old Testament; and to meet this difficulty, expositors have resorted to various conjectures and solutions. Some have supposed that the passage is spurious and that it was at first a gloss in the margin, placed there, by some transcriber, and was then introduced into the text; some that the apostle quotes from an apocryphal book; some, that he quotes the general spirit of the Old Testament rather than any particular place; some regard it not as a quotation, but read the two members separately, supplying what is necessary to complete the sense, thus: "Do you think that the Scripture speaks in vain, or without a good reason, when it condemns such a worldly temper? No; that you can not suppose. Do you imagine that the Spirit of God, which dwelleth in us Christians, leads to covetousness, pride, envy? No. On the contrary, to such as follow his guidance and direction, he gives more abundant grace and favour." This is the solution proposed by Benson, arid adopted by Bloomfield. But this solution is by no means satisfactory. Two things are clear in regard to the passage:
(1,) that James meant to adduce something that was said somewhere, or which could be regarded as a quotation, or as authority in the case, for he uses the formula by which such quotations are made; and,:

(2,) that he meant to refer, not to an apocryphal book, but to the inspired and canonical Scriptures, for he uses a term (h grajh--the Scripture) which is everywhere employed to denote the Old Testament, and which is nowhere applied to an apocryphal book, Mt 21:42; 22:29; 26:54,56; Joh 2:22; 5:39; 7:38,42; 10:35, et al. The word is used more than fifty times in the New Testament, and is never applied to any books but those which were regarded by the Jews as inspired, and which constitute now the Old Testament, except in 2Pe 3:16, where it refers to the writings of Paul. The difficulty in the case arises from the fact that no such passage as the one here quoted is found in so many words in the Old Testament, nor any of which it can fairly be regarded as a quotation. The only solution of the difficulty which seems, to me to be at all satisfactory, is to suppose that the apostle, in the remark made here in the form of a quotation, refers to the Old Testament, but that he had not his eye on any particular passage, and did not mean to quote the words literally, but meant to refer to what was the current teaching or general spirit of the Old Testament; or that he meant to say that this sentiment was found there, and designed himself to embody the sentiment in words, and to put it into a condensed form. His eye was on envy as at the bottom of many of the contentions and strifes existing on earth, (Jas 3:16,) and of the spirit of the world which prevailed everywhere, (Jas 4:4 and he refers to the general teaching of the Old Testament that the soul is by nature inclined to envy; or that this has a deep lodgement in the heart of man. That truth which was uttered everywhere in the Scriptures, was not taught "in vain." The abundant facts which existed showing its developement and operation in contentions, and wars, and a worldly spirit, proved that it was deeply imbedded in the human soul. This general truth, that man is prone to envy, or that there is much in our nature which inclines us to it, is abundantly taught in the Old Testament. Ec 4:4, "I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour." Job 5:2, "Wrath killeth, and envy slayeth the silly one." Pr 14:30, "Envy is the rottenness of the bones." Pr 27:4, "Who is able to stand before envy?" For particular instances of this, and the effects, see Ge 26:14; 30:1; 37:11; Ps 106:16; 73:3. These passages prove that there is strong propensity in human nature to envy, and it was in accordance with the design of the apostle to show this. The effects of envy to which he himself referred evinced the same thing, and demonstrated that the utterance given to this sentiment in the Old Testament was not "in vain," or was not false, for the records in the Old Testament on the subject found a strong confirmation in the wars and strifes and worldliness of which he was speaking.

Saith in vain. "Says falsely;" that is, the testimony thus borne is true. The apostle means that what was said in the Old Testament on the subject found abundant confirmation in the facts which were continually occurring, and especially in those to which he was adverting.

The spirit that dwelleth in us. Many have supposed that the word spirit here refers to the Holy Spirit, or the Christian spirit; but in adopting this interpretation they are obliged to render the passage, "the spirit that dwells in us lusteth against envy," or tends to check and suppress it. But this interpretation is forced and unnatural, and one which the Greek will not well bear. The more obvious interpretation is to refer it to our spirit or disposition as we are by nature, and it is equivalent to saying that we are naturally prone to envy.

Lusteth to envy. Strongly tends to envy. The margin is "enviously," but the sense is the same. The idea is, that there is in man a strong inclination to look with dissatisfaction on the superior happiness and prosperity of others; to desire to make what they possess our own; or at any rate to deprive them of it by detraction, by fraud, or by robbery. It is this feeling which leads to calumny, to contentions, to wars, and to that strong worldly ambition which makes us anxious to surpass all others, and which is so hostile to the humble and contented spirit of religion. He who could trace all wars and contentions and worldly plans to their source--all the schemes and purposes of even professed Christians, that do so much to mar their religion and to make them worldly-minded, to their real origins would be surprised to find how much is to be attributed to envy. We are pained that others are more prosperous than we are; we desire to possess what others have, though we have no right to it; and this leads to the various guilty methods which are pursued to lessen their enjoyment of it, or to obtain it ourselves, or to show that they do not possess as much as they are commonly supposed to. This purpose will be accomplished if we can obtain more than they have; or if we can diminish what they actually possess; or if by any statements to which we can give currency in society, the general impression shall be that they do not possess as much wealth, domestic peace, happiness, or honour, as is commonly supposed-- for thus the spirit of envy in our bosoms will be gratified.

{+} "to envy" or, "enviously"
{a} "to envy" Ec 4:4

Makes sense to me. James does not have a different canon as CBTS supposes but rather he is "moved by the Holy Spirit" as the Scripture says he was.
Perhaps Craig missed this commentary. I am not one who relies on commentaries as a general rule but for this passage this fellow makes sense, thereby upholding the doctrine of inerrancy.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Barnes' notes are, in his own words, "satisfactory" here, and even compelling to me. That James uses "the Scripture says" formula rather than the more strict "it is written" formula may point to a different, looser way of drawing out, well, what the Scripture says or teaches (although it may also be used for direct quotation), rather than what is "written" more or less word for word. I wonder if CBTS has any examples of NT writers using the "it is written" formula without quoting a passage from the OT? I'm not sure if there is one.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I did not evade the question in order to avoid stating my position on the inerrancy of the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE] I saw a lengthy "statement of faith" posted by you then saw you express views that contradict it. A "conservative" would not say that Noah's flood "could not" happen the way it is recorded in Genesis. Conservatives do not promote the idea that Moses was not the writer of Genesis 1-11. Conservatives do not write off the authority of the first 11 chapters of the Bible by calling them allegory when there is no internal evidence in the Bible itself of the account being anything less than an narrative.

The Bible tells us that scripture is God breathed. Does God make errors?

Who gets to say when the Bible is/isn't inerrant? You? The Jesus Seminar? Liberal scholars? "Conservative" scholars?

The Bible does express that scripture is God breathed... and it most certainly declares that He makes no mistakes. This is "expressly Biblical".

This is an example of liberal double speak. You have faith but practice doubt? Your statement contradicts itself before you even type a period.

Now you are employing the false logic of KJVOnlyism. They use it and conclude that only the unique set of words called the KJV are the Word of God in English. You use it to conclude that the Bible itself is not inerrant. You are both wrong because your premise is wrong.

Or more apparently, you are far too willing to accept and promote answers that undermine the authority and validity of scripture.

Other than that, I defer to others who answered this objection.

Once again rather than proving your point and citing your sources, you resort to insults and insenuation that anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. You try to portray yourself as open minded but your reactions communicate something entirely different.

Conservative does not equal "higher criticism" in whole or in part. Conservative and fundamentalist do differ in many respects but very little with regard to scripture. Lower criticism is accepted by "conservatives" and genuine fundamentalists.

I know enough to recognize the patterns in your posts. You don't have to be a thorough going liberal to be liberal just like you don't have to be a full fledged socialist to fit on the left of the political spectrum.

There are distinctions to be made but for the purpose of this response I am only referring to inerrancy of the particular wording. I do believe inerrancy of the message is applicable to faithful versions today.

Relating to the words of the text, the originals were an act of a perfect God. Men wrote as they were moved. Copies and translations occur under the providence of God but the are subject to the fallibility of men with regard to the individual word choices.

It is not irrelevant. The authority for albeit imperfect (word for word) copies and translations can only be derived from the originals given by God Himself.

I don't admit that. I only admit that we don't have a facsimile of the original wording. I don't believe that the evidence can be interpretted in any other way than that we have the complete substance of what was originally written.

Thus saith liberals who have a vested interest in not treating scripture as absolutely authoritative.

If the originals were not inerrant as you suggest, what is the point of trying to reproduce them faithfully?

 

I believe that we enter upon a sand dune rather than upon solid ground when we make the distinction that you are suggesting. For example, consider what happens when you apply that interpretation to 2 Tim. 3:16,

16. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (NASB, 1995)

The phrase, "it is written", appears approximately 63 times in the New Testament, usually as a formula similar to what we find in the Old Testament, but sometimes not (Matt. 26:24; Mark 9:12, 13; Mark 14:21; Luke 24:46; Heb. 10:27). In 1 Cor. 1:31 we find Paul using the formula and giving an unidentified quote (it may be a very loose paraphrase of Jer. 9:23). We find a similar thing in 1 Cor. 2:9 and Gal. 4:22. 1 Cor. 15:45 is especially interesting, and what is Paul quoting in Gal. 4:27? In the Old Testament, however, we find,

2 Sam. 1:18. and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar.

 

Scott wrote,

All that I see in your post is that your personal definition of the word “conservative” is very different from the definition used by my colleagues and me. In other words, you are finding fault with me for calling myself a “conservative,” but you have not posted any data to refute my views, conservative or not. If you can do no better than criticize my use of the word “conservative,” perhaps you should start yet another thread on the meaning of that word. This particular thread is about inerrancy—it is not about your personal definition of the word “conservative.”

 

All that I see in your post is that your personal definition of the word “conservative” is very different from the definition used by my colleagues and me.</font>[/QUOTE] You will note that I referenced your "colleagues" before when I suggested that your perspective might be slanted by who you know.

Further, I stated a very simple case of why the Bible does claim to be inerrant.

In the right company, Hillary Clinton would be the most conservative person in the room... but on the spectrum of American politics she is definitely left of center.

I posted views that are not conservative in my last post. Fundamentalist and conservative are not synonomous... but with respect to the founding fundamentalists of 100 years ago they are very close.

You have expressed respect for and/or acceptance of views that "The Fundamentals" written by conservative/orthodox Christians of the day wrote to repudiate.

You're the one who claimed to be conservative while in other places stating views that are very much in line with liberals and higher critics.

If you want to get back to the subject then let's do. Please clarify your answer to my question: Do you or do you not believe that God inspired and superintended the originals directly?

Additionally now that we have claimed different things and I have stated my rationale for believing the Bible claims to be inerrant, please state what part of my argument you disagree with. Does the Bible not claim to be inspired directly by God? Does the Bible say that God can make mistakes? Does the Bible anywhere indicate that men were moved by the Spirit to write but that sometimes their fallibility overcame what God was trying to accomplish through them thus rendering the originals errant?

 

It is not irrelevant as to whether the original documents were inerrant or not, because it goes to the very nature of God. If God inspired the original biblical books, and if God is perfect and without fault, then it is only a logical conclusion that the originals are inerrant.

There is no conflict in concluding that and acknowledging that there are copyists or translator errors in the documents we do have.

But since there are errors in the copies, it also means that there must be an original without error, or there would be nothing to measure the errors against, even though we do not have the originals. It seems totally logical and in keeping with God's nature to believe that the original writings are without error.

 

Volumes have been written on this subject—and volumes have been written on this subject because the answers are highly complex, a fact that I have already briefly illustrated.

The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant.

No, it does not.

No.

This question is packed full of non-Biblical assumptions. Remove the non-Biblical assumptions from your question and I will answer it.

 

Marcia wrote,

You appear to me to be assuming that God inspired the actual words written in the original documents. However, the internal evidence that this is not the case is conclusive. Each individual writer’s personality, theology, vocabulary, phraseology, style, etc., are manifested in all 27 books of the New Testament. And of course Luke expressly refutes such a notion,

Luke 1:1. Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3. it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write {it} out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
4. so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (NASB, 1995)

Additional internal evidence includes the fact that many passages in the New Testament were poorly worded, giving us a multitude of ambiguities that have caused debates, squabbles, fights, controversies, disputes, etc., ever since they were first written. Many professional writers today could do very much better, and I personally believe that God could do even better than those professional writers. Therefore, we know for a fact that either the New Testament documents as we have them today are radically different than what they were originally, or they were not very well written to begin with. Therefore, there can be no possibility whatsoever that the originals were inspired by God word for word.

 

Marcia wrote,

No, it only means there must have been originals that were inaccurately copied. The originals may have included a multitude of errors, and certainly those who copied them believed this to be the case because the copies are full of what the scribes believed to be corrections of the originals.

Comparing a copy to the original in no way suggests that the original was perfect. When I study the writings of William Shakespeare, I use an 18 volume critical edition in which the editors have applied the science of textual criticism to the many old manuscripts of Shakespeare’s writing in order to ascertain the most likely original reading. That does not, of course, in any way suggest that Shakespeare’s writings were inerrant.

That may seem logical to you, but logic has nothing to do with it. The originals either included a multitude of human attributes or the copies that we have today are nothing like the originals. Was one of those attributes human error? Luke certainly suggests that possibility.

I evaluate each one of the 27 New Testament documents individually based upon their individual merit. I have spent very many thousands of hours with the Apostle Paul, and based upon that experience, I have very much confidence in what he has to say. I respect Luke’s approach in writing his gospel and I respect Luke for being faithful to Paul when others deserted him. In those places where Luke and one of the other writers of a synoptic gospel disagree, I strongly tend to favor Luke. Did James understand the New Testament message better than Paul? Or did Paul understand the New Testament message better than James? I personally believe that Paul understood it more clearly, but that James brings out some very important points that Paul left out of his writings. Did Peter write 2 Peter? Most likely he did not. Did the writer of 2 Peter hint that he was not actually Peter? Very possibly he did so. Only when we allow for these possibilities can we really begin to explore and study without restraint the individual documents that make up our New Testament. I find doing so very enjoyable and very enlightening, and it helps me to better appreciate God and His gift to us of the New Testament documents.

 

Craig said, "Additional internal evidence includes the fact that many passages in the New Testament were poorly worded, giving us a multitude of ambiguities that have caused debates, squabbles, fights, controversies, disputes, etc., ever since they were first written. Many professional writers today could do very much better, and I personally believe that God could do even better than those professional writers. Therefore, we know for a fact that either the New Testament documents as we have them today are radically different than what they were originally, or they were not very well written to begin with. Therefore, there can be no possibility whatsoever that the originals were inspired by God word for word."
__________________________________________________

Poorly worded?

"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
"Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."
"So then, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
"The just shall live by faith".

I could go on all day, but I hope SOMEBODY here gets my point.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Thank you for your help, Jim. I am indebted to you. You have just posted four of the most ambiguous statements in the Bible that scarcely two Christians anywhere in the world agree upon the meaning and the intent of. Baptists have been arguing over these four statements since before the ink was dry.

 

CBTS,

1 Cor. 1:31 indeed is pretty close to the LXX of Jer. 9:23, which says, "...let him who boasts boast that he understands and knows that I am the Lord...." The substance of what Scripture says in Jer. 9:23 is virtually identical to what Paul says the Scripture says.

As for Gal. 4:27, it is exactly, word for word, the LXX of Is. 54:1 (comparing with the NA27). I'm not sure what your point was on this one.

As for the book of Jashar and the other "lost" books mentioned in the OT, those are never claimed to be "Scripture", whereas for the NT, if the apostolic NT authors called something "Scripture" that we do not Scripture today, that is problematic.

Back to Jas. 4:5. Is it possible that James' use of "the Scripture says" could be used in the way Barnes takes it, i.e., conceptually, in that "the spirit dwelling in us lusts after envy" is a conceptual truth that is illustrated and taught in many places of the OT?

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I am sure that in the context of the NT those words were most likely understood much better than today. It was enough for them then but that leaves us to dig and learn.

I think most of the squabbles today are due to many who are unwilling to study and if they do and find some things they do not like lack the integrity to stand firm instead of following the crowd. Of course some are unwilling to believe when the evidence is in front of them because it isn't what some preacher told them that was full of what he had been told and that person who told him was full of SYI (share your Ignorance).

I really believe the squabbles are few among those who study well and are willing to face the facts. The majority of squabbles are at what I call the ignorance level. It is tough to argue when presented with the facts. Over the years I have had to wrestle with some things that I once was told and when I studied later found out something quite different. To much of Christendom today is like a political party, rather than working as a team to get the correct answer called the truth.

 

Quite simple when studied in context. Often the problem is lifting those verses from its context and trying to mix it in with other passages that lie in a different context.

The problem too often is Americanized theology. The original context was in the NT not America.

 

Volumes have been written on this subject—and volumes have been written on this subject because the answers are highly complex, a fact that I have already briefly illustrated.</font>[/QUOTE] The answer is not complex unless you are inclined to explain away the implications of your answer.

You want to maintain the freedom of being a skeptic without admitting that you are rejecting the Bible as being completely authoritative and a direct act of revelation by God.

The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant.</font>[/QUOTE] I stated a clear, simple rationale for why I believe that it does. Your denying it does not constitute proof.

No, it does not.</font>[/QUOTE] So "all scripture is God breathed" means what? When the Bible says that men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, what exactly does that mean? Peter's claims of authority in 2 Peter and reference to Paul's writings as scripture mean what... oh yeah, I forgot, you don't think Peter wrote it, never mind.

Yeah... I guess you are a "real conservative" guy with regard to your approach to the Bible.

No.</font>[/QUOTE] What does it matter to you if the Bible says this? How do you know that the Bible really does say this? It isn't inspired of God or inerrant anyway, right?

This question is packed full of non-Biblical assumptions. Remove the non-Biblical assumptions from your question and I will answer it.</font>[/QUOTE] No it isn't... just keep on evading things you don't want to face the implications of though... your silence speaks volumes.

 

Thank you for your help, Jim. I am indebted to you. You have just posted four of the most ambiguous statements in the Bible that scarcely two Christians anywhere in the world agree upon the meaning and the intent of. Baptists have been arguing over these four statements since before the ink was dry.


</font>[/QUOTE]Which of course would mean they have been arguing over them as they were being written?

That is the implication of "since before the ink was dry." Of course I suppose, to give you the benefit of the doubt, you did't mean it literally did you?



In HIS service;
Jim

 

Not quite that literally—I do occasionally use figures of speech and other literary devices in my posts . But who knows, perhaps James was looking over Paul’s shoulder while he wrote his Epistle to the Romans . If he was, we can be certain that a squabble erupted long before Paul finished writing .

But please do not misunderstand me. I take it by faith that both the Old Testament and the New Testament were inspired by God , but objective academic study must remove itself from preconceived ideas that are a matter of faith rather than academics .

 

2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

Who wrote these words? Answer: This man did:

Rom. 7:14. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
15. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

1 Tim. 1:15. It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

The man who was, according to his own words, the foremost sinners, a man who was of flesh, sold into bondage to sin, who practiced the very evil that he did not want to practice, wrote “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” And you are taking this man’s word for it?

Even my three-year-old grandson knows better that to believe the foremost of sinners!

Perhaps we should instead believe the words of the Solomon,

"Vanity of vanities! All is vanity."

(All Scriptures NASB, 1995, unless otherwise noted)

 

Yes. He was an instrument of God. The work was not his but rather God's. If it were in fact his word then it would carry no authority and there is ample evidence within his epistles that he would not have claimed any authority for his own personal wisdom... but rather that he was submitted to God's wisdom.

He is also the subject of Peter here:

2 Peter 3:15

He was a man who also defended his position and authority as an Apostle on numerous occasions. A man who claimed that his teachings came from Christ though he was not a disciple prior to the ascension.

I certainly see that in what I read from you.

Your opinion- certain.
Your intellect- certain.
Your presuppositions- certain.
Your preferred theories of textual criticism- certain.
Your education- certain.
What educated men have taught you- certain.
Your interpretations- certain.

God's Word- well that's a much more complex issue.

[ April 13, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]