Inerrancy defined

Most regrettably, Dr. Gleason Archer passed away on the evening of April 17, 2004. He was a very well known and respected authority on the Old Testament and his opinion on the authorship of the Pentateuch should not be lightly dismissed. However, he was in the very small minority, in terms of Old Testament scholars, in his views regarding both its authorship and its inspiration. Archer believed the Bible “assumes full inerrancy,” but that is only an assumption on his part. No where in the Bible do we find the assumption of inerrancy, and, in my view, we find the assumption of human fallibility. The writer of the third gospel expressly claims that his work is based upon his own personal and careful investigation of the data available to him.

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.

His use of the expression, “exact truth,” rests upon his confidence in the thoroughness and carefulness of his own, personal investigation. There is no mention of assistance from the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

In the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians we get some insight into Paul’s personal perception of his own thoughts and writings. In verse 10, Paul cites the Lord as his authority,

10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband

In the 12th verse, however, Paul cites himself as his authority, and even goes so far as to write, “I say, not the Lord, . . . .”

12. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

And in verses 25 – 26 Paul gives his own personal opinion,

25. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
26. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

These verses do not absolutely rule out the possibility of inspiration and inerrancy, but they certainly do not assume inerrancy as the consequence of inspiration.

Okay, now it is your turn. Where in the Bible do you find that inerrancy is assumed as the consequence of inspiration? Do you find the assumption in the Bible as Archer claims to have done, or are you making the assumption yourself as, in reality, Archer himself did?

 

I know Gleason Archer learned hieroglyphics by the age of 8, but I didn't know he held that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch, including the account of his own death.

As for biblical inerrancy, I think it stems first from arguments about God himself and what his revelation must therefore be like, i.e., perfect like himself. It is a theological faith issue, but those who hold to biblical inerrancy, like I myself, should be prepared to defend it.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Being human as we are, we can expect that our perception of the perfection of God and its implications will have human limitations, and therefore will be subject to error.

Amen! And in my opinion, you are the only one who has seriously attempted to do so, and I enjoyed reading your defense.

 

I believe that it is best to study what the Bible says about the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

 

I'm still wondering just why Icthus' main defense of inerrancy requires that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch? Sure the Pentateuch was called the law of Moses, but can't we just leave it at that?

What about the books written by who knows whom? What about 1 & 2 Chronicles, and Job and many other books of the OT? Why not defend the Pentateuch in the same way we defend those books written anonymously?

When biblical inerrancy's defense is based on unwarranted presuppositions (like Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch), it makes it easy for people to ridicule the position of biblical inerrancy, for example, by showing with overwhelming literary probabilities that Moses probably did not write every word of the Pentateuch.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Joshua could have written this into the account. The reason no one knew where Moses' body was because, as the account states, God buried Moses. "Unto this day" does not necessarily mean a lot of time has passed. </font>[/QUOTE]I partially agree, and many conservatives hold that position. (I'm still waiting for Icthus to call you a liberal for holding that Moses didn't write about his own death, though.) It is the collective force of many such cases, anachronisms, literary differences, interjected interpretations and explanations, etc., that suggest someone with the hindsight of Israel's long past and glorious future, someone like Ezra in the OT or Simeon in Luke 2, went through and revised, with God's superimposition, all 39 OT books and produced the final canonical product we now call the TORAH. Of course this is conjecture, but I think it's an educated one, and it's about the best I can do in holding to my view of biblical inerrancy.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Do you believe that “someone with the hindsight of Israel's long past and glorious future, someone like Ezra in the OT or Simeon in Luke 2, went through and revised, with God's superimposition, all 39 OT books and produced the final canonical product we now call the TORAH” because of the internal evidence, or because of your presupposition that because God is perfect the Old Testament must be inerrant down to the most minute detail and therefore all of the redactions must have been performed with “God's superimposition”?

 

Bluefalcon wrote:

"I'm still waiting for Icthus to call you a liberal for holding that Moses didn't write about his own death, though"

Where did I say that Moses actually penned the Torah? (I did say that Jesus endorsed that moses was the author of the Torah, but this does NOT mean that he had to write every single word) I have no problem that even Joshua could have written the actual words down while Moses dictated them to him. My point is two-fold. Firstly, that all of the information in the five books were written durning the lifetime of Moses, and under his full knowledge of what was written. Secondly, That there is NO evidence that there was any additions or corrections made to them after his death, as this is based purely on conjecture, and not facts.

The issue is exactly like some of Paul's Epistles, where it clearly says at the end of them, that some else actually wrote the words at Pauls command.

 

Joshua could have written this into the account. The reason no one knew where Moses' body was because, as the account states, God buried Moses. "Unto this day" does not necessarily mean a lot of time has passed. </font>[/QUOTE]I partially agree, and many conservatives hold that position. (I'm still waiting for Icthus to call you a liberal for holding that Moses didn't write about his own death, though.) It is the collective force of many such cases, anachronisms, literary differences, interjected interpretations and explanations, etc., that suggest someone with the hindsight of Israel's long past and glorious future, someone like Ezra in the OT or Simeon in Luke 2, went through and revised, with God's superimposition, all 39 OT books and produced the final canonical product we now call the TORAH. Of course this is conjecture, but I think it's an educated one, and it's about the best I can do in holding to my view of biblical inerrancy.

Yours, Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you waste your time on conjecture, whether an educated one or not? If you stick with facts you will learn.

 

The Bible is Gods book, written by humans moved by the Holy Spirit. No where does it say its absolutley perfect in spelling, mistakes etc etc etc...

I wonder sometimes why people get hung up on this.

Tell me, using these words, can you make a sentence. Field, Farmer, Rabbit, Gun, Supper.

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt;

 

Misters Field, Farmer, Rabbit, Gun, and Supper went outside to play.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

The mind boggles

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt;

 

David, you are mistaken. The Holy Bible is perfect in the original autographs even to the last dot, because it is the Infallable Word of a Perfect God. Even the full stop and coma were inserted in the right place.

 

Also look at the Church, created by God but run by humans...what a mess

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt;

 

I agree with the comment on the infallible Word of God!

 

David, you are mistaken. The Holy Bible is perfect in the original autographs even to the last dot, because it is the Infallable Word of a Perfect God. Even the full stop and coma were inserted in the right place. </font>[/QUOTE]/me writes in the dust on the ground and then says...

Ok, explain the woman and the costly ointment to me...using all 4 Gospels.

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt;

 

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Harris: Also look at the Church, created by God but run by humans...what a mess

I think you are mistaking.

 

Not in every church! Granted there are plenty of churches that do that but I can think of three churches directly off hand that encourage you listen to the Holy Spirit during the church service.
The three are:
*First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana
*Lancaster Baptist Church (Lancaster, CA)
*Rosedale Baptist Church (My home church in Baltimore, MD)

 

David, you are mistaken. The Holy Bible is perfect in the original autographs even to the last dot, because it is the Infallable Word of a Perfect God. Even the full stop and coma were inserted in the right place. </font>[/QUOTE]/me writes in the dust on the ground and then says...

Ok, explain the woman and the costly ointment to me...using all 4 Gospels.

David
&lt;°)))&gt;&lt; </font>[/QUOTE]What do you want explained? I keep on saying that the "original autographs" (do you know what is meant by this?) are 100% error free, not our versions in the various languages.

The accounts in the Goepels do at some points "vary", but not because they "contradict" each other, but, because they are reporting the events differently.

The bottom line is. The Bible has no contradictions, only those that "seem" to be, otherwise known as "paradoxes"