Inerrancy defined

BTW Craig, Do you still maintain that you are "conservative" in your approach to scripture? By what measure?

On this board you have said/suggested that:

- Moses was not the author of Genesis.
- Noah's flood "could not" have occurred the way the Bible records.
- The first 11 books are indisputably allegory.
- That the original text of the Bible was not inerrant nor verbally inspired.
- That the Bible was in fact the writings of fallible men.
... and perhaps other things classically "liberal" that I have missed.

I do wonder though... are you playing the devil's advocate?.... or maybe you are trying to see how far you can push the board administrators before they send you packing?

I find it hard to believe that you really hold the beliefs you espouse and simultaneously contend that you are a theologically "conservative" Christian.

 

Well, then, the obvious thing that we should do is pray that someone will become even a worse sinner than Paul so that God can use him to add to the Canon. As a matter of fact, what we should do is read as much of what we can find of the writings of sinners like Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Perhaps their writings are also inspired, that is, if their sins came close to those of the foremost of sinners, the Apostle Paul.

 

How can originals be copied? What were they copied from?

 

I don't know how this shows that the original writings were not inspired by God. Just because the writers' individual style, personality, etc. are manifested in the documents, that does not mean the writings were not inspired by God. I am very aware of the individual styles, etc. of the writers. That shows how God does not violate the personality of these people, but rather uses it to convey his word.

 

I am sorry, but there is nothing in what you say to indicate that the originals were radically different. Ambiguity may come from translation or copyist errors, or not knowing what a word meant at that time (which is common enough in translating anything from the past), but that does not mean what we have is radically different from the originals.

And if it is radically different, then we don't have God's word, do we?

Personally, having been a Lit major and being a writer myself, I have found nothing outside the Bible to be equal in beauty and profundity to the Bible.

 

Craig, you say: "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 "

You are someone who speaks with both sides of his mouth. In other words, you contradict yourself in your own posts. You claim here, "I take it by faith that both the Old Testament and the New Testament were inspired by God" But elsewhere you have said time and time again that the Bible never claims "inerrancy" for itself. Is your understanding of "inspired by God", mean that what the writers wrote were the Words that the Holy Spirit communicated to them, or do you mean something else? If you accept the meaning that I have given, then you have to accept a plenary inspiration of Scripture. And, it can only follow from this, that, since the author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13; 1 John 5:6), and is said to be the Guide of "all the Truth" (John 16:13), that the Words so "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, must indeed be Inerrant. For, how can "The Spirit of the Truth", lead someone to write something that is error? You the are guilty of making God the author of "error" in His Holy Word. He is therefore responsible of giving us information in His Holy Word, that is blatantly incorrect. If this is the case, as you suggest by your argument that the Bible never claims to be inerrant, then, how can we trust God at all? Which parts of Scripture can we say with certainity, that "this is the Word of God" that in inerrant, and which parts, which are still inspired by God, yet are not Trustworthy? Can you see the huge problems you reasoning causes?

Sure there are "apparant contradictions" in the Bible, as there are indeed some difficult texts and passages. I have found this myself in my 18 years of textual study of the NT. But, instead of jumping to the conclusion that these "problems" show that there is error in the original writings, which lands us in some very deep hot water with the Lord, it is far safer to admit that I do not know the answer to certain "problems" at this moment, and pray that the Spirit of Truth should help me understand. The "problems" that are there, in wo way detract from the fact that the original autographs are indeed the Infallable, Inerrant, Word of Almighty God. And, on the basis of this, that God is the author of the Holy Bible, I will humbly accept it as The Truth, and submit to the Holy Spirit to teach me where there is difficulty in my understanding.

We have to have as our starting point, that God is Perfect in ALL that He does. That there is NO error in His Word, nor any room to doubt Him at His Word. A Perfect God can only give us a Perfect Word in the Holy Bible. I cannot emphasise enough the dangers in holding to an errant Holy Bible in the originals, as this whole subject deals directly with the Character of God.

 

The Bible makes it expressly clear that Moses was NOT the author of Genesis. Fact: the Book of Genesis is one of five books of the Old Testament commonly known by Christians as the Pentateuch. We have already established that God used the “foremost” of sinners to write the Pauline Epistles, and the Bible also says,

Heb. 6:18. so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

We see in this verse that God does not change and therefore He must have used a most horrible sinner to write the Pentateuch—and most certainly Moses did not meet that qualification. Therefore, we can be absolutely certain, based upon the sure Word of God, that the real author of the Pentateuch was the Pharaoh of Egypt. Only a dastardly liberal “Christian” would attempt to deny this truth that is so clearly taught in the Word of God.

God is perfect, therefore he can NOT be delusional and therefore the deluge described in Genesis 6 – 9 is at best a myth, and most probably one of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Grimm did not write allegories—he wrote fairy tales.

Since we have now incontrovertibly established that the “foremost” of sinners wrote the Pauline corpus, and that the Pharaoh of Egypt wrote the Pentateuch, only a delusional liberal would dare to say that God debased Himself by using the worst of sinners to proclaim His Holy Word.

The absolute fact that Paul was the “foremost” of sinners is absolute proof that God used fallible men to write the Bible. Hint: Only a fallible man could possibly become the “foremost of sinners.”

Not one chance in a million! I am one of the most conservative members on this message board. Most of the members are conservative because they don’t know any better. I am conservative because I have invested 30 years of my life studying the Bible while the other members were watching Monday Night Football. I have earned degrees from some of the finest universities in entire universe (that’s why they call them universities) and I have therefore humbly learned the truth that the Pharaoh of Egypt wrote the Pentateuch and that the “foremost” of sinners wrote the Pauline corpus (notice this big word—absolute, undeniable, incontrovertible (another big word) proof that I am a conservative scholar of the Bible.

Reality Check: I trust that the Holy Spirit has made it clear that in my last several posts I have been parodying the argument of Icthus and the like that the original documents of the 66 books of the Holy Bible were necessarily perfect right down to every comma, semicolon, and apostrophe. The Bible is my life’s work, and I treasure it above everything except God Himself. I believe in the inspiration of all 66 books of our Bible and I believe that the texts used today for the purpose of Bible translation accurately reflect the original, inspired words, and that the Holy Spirit blessed and anointed the translators of our best translations and that these translations are essentially without error.

 

I am a fundamentalist Christian, but I think most "conservatives" hold that Moses "composed" the Pentateuch from source documents available to him, and that other holy prophets most likely "updated" or "edited" the Pentateuch throughout its long literary history.

Yours, Bluefalcon

[ April 14, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Bluefalcon ]

 

What is your own belief? The view that you have shown to be that of some "conservatives", in wholly incorrect and based on an unfounded assumption. We must deal with facts, and hot put our trust in the liberal "higher criticism" of the Old Testament that exists to undermine the Word of God. All we know form such an Authority as Jesus Himself, is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, known as "The Torah" The idea of "composing", "updating" and "editing" serves no real purpose to the Textual Criticism of the OT, as this is merely speculation, and you are advised to keep well clear of that.

 

It is evident from the Old Testament, that, when we see the phrase: "The Law of Moses", it was referring to the first five books of the OT, known as "The Torah" (see, Joshua 1:7-8; 8:32, 34; 22:5; 1 Ki 2:3; 2 Ki 14:6;21:8; Ezra 6:18; Dan 9:11-13; Mal 4:4). This is the established, accepted view of Jews in the Old and New Testament times.

Jesus Himself, the highest authority, said:

"and He said unto them, these are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the pslams, concerning Me" (Luke 22:44, see also verse 27)

Regardless of what the best "scholars" might say about the authorship of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, otherwise known as the "Books of the Law", or the "Law of Moses", no one can dispute that our Lord has clearly endorsed Moses as the author of all five books. This might sound too simple to the critical mind, but for me it settles the issue forever. You simply cannot argue with the authority of Jesus Christ, unless, of course you are a moron!

 

Did Moses write every word in the Pentateuch as we have it now? Did he write about his own death in the third person at the end of Deuteronomy?

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Dt. 34:6: "And [the LORD] buried [Moses] in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day."

The words "unto this day" sound utterly absurd and actually disingenuous if Moses himself wrote them. Actually, even if someone around the time of Moses wrote them they carry little to no significance. The impression is that a good deal of time has passed, and that still no one knows where Moses' body is.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Dt. 34:10: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,"

This sounds not only stupid but also arrogant if Moses himself actually wrote it. The impression is that for this to be a complement to Moses, a good deal of time had passed and still no prophet had arisen in Israel even close to the likes of Moses.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Jesus never said Moses wrote every word of the "Law of Moses". The Pentateuch was called the "Law of Moses" because Moses was known to have been its composer. That updating of the Pentateuch and other books of the OT took place is rather obvious, because names of places and cities change over hundreds of years. There are many examples of this kind of updating. And in the poetic parts of the OT, exegetical features abound and are interposed all over the place into the 3-word by 3-word poetical Hebrew prose. I happen to believe that all these features are inspired of God.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Did you want Jesus to say: "Moses wrote every word in the Torah"? Why? Do you not accept that by the reference "The Law of Moses", this was standard to include all the 5 books? You cannot refute what I said about the Holy Spirit revealing to Moses events prior to his death, because you know this is true. You reasoning sounds much like that of Craigbythesea, which is based on speculation rather than fact. Anything that casts doubt on the Word of God I cast out, rather than try to be clever.

 

Icthus,

Do you deny the possibility of a redactor?

In Christ,

Untangled

 

When you get invloved with whether of not the OT or NT was revised of edited, you are working with assumption. This will not do when it comes to the Word of God, as there is then the problem as to what was revised, and by whom, and when. This then adds to the problem with the Inspiration, Infallibility and Inerrancy of Scripture, as only the originals would have been inspired. Youy also have the problem with the need for a revision or editing. Where there errors in the original that needed to be corrected later? This then brings us to the Trustwortiness of Scripture, and the Perfect character of God.

No, I cannot accept this, as it causes far too many problems than it solves. And, there is no evidence that any of the original writings were in any need to be revised.

I am aware that these theories were around in the 17th century, but only by those who would not accept the final authority of Scripture.

I don't deal in speculation, only fact

 

Well, then, the obvious thing that we should do is pray that someone will become even a worse sinner than Paul so that God can use him to add to the Canon.</font>[/QUOTE] Yours is quite possible the most irrational argument I have ever heard. Because Paul was completely repentant he is somehow disqualified to serve as God's instrument for recording divinely inspired scripture? I don't think so.

I suppose I should not be surprised that you adopt this kind of reasoning... or lack of clear reasoning.

If they were saved and if they received a visitation from the risen Savior and if they met the qualifications for an Apostle and if they received direct inspiration from God for what they wrote and if the scriptures had not been completed.... then who is to say God wouldn't be glorified?

When Paul was weak in himself, he was strong in the Lord. His humility was part of what made him such a useful instrument. Do you see that kind of repentant humility in Hitler or Hussein?

Of course, you are arguing a ridiculous straw man... which says alot about the real merit of your argument.

 

Amen.
It disproves direct verbal inspiration no more than writings in crayon, blue ink, red ink, and graphite prove different writers for each document.