Just how inspired is the Bible?

[Ed Edwards]

In my KJV there is a cross-reference
margin note that says:
*See 1 Chro. 20.5

1Ch 20:5 (KJV1611 Edition):
And there was warre againe with the Philistines,
and Elhanan the sonne of Iair,
slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite,
whose spearestaffe was like a weauers beame.

So the blessed Anglican translators of the
KJV corrected the error in 2 Samuel 21:19

BTW, it seems a shame to take this topic
out of what bro. Bill wanted and right into
the Versions Forum. I wrote a reply last
night trying to get the topic back on pace
but that reply disappeared into cyber-space .

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
1. God cannot err.
2. The bible is the word of God.
3. Therefore, the bible cannot err.

If you deny #3, then you must deny one of the first two. If you hold to the first two, you must accept #3.

I consider this logic in line with

1. God cannot err.
2. Man is made in God's image.
3. Therefore, man cannot err.

I'm not denying #3, I'm just challenging your propositional logic.

And your statements are about inerrancy, not inspiration. The two are often confused as being equivalent.

My belief in the inspiration, trustworthyness, authority and truth of the bible is based on faith and not logic.

If we are going to use logic to defend our beliefs, I hope the logic we use is actually robust enough to have some value.

 

[Bluefalcon]

I would say the historical scraps of paper Moses or other biblical authors may have had at their disposal were not inspired. I would not tear the Bible apart, like Wellhausen, searching for these sources. I would encourage discussion on the possibility of an aspect of inspired progressive revelation up until the closing of the Canon of Scripture. Looking at the interruption of Hebrew poetic meter in the Prophets and some of the Writings seems to me a possibility of exegetical commentary by some later prophets. Anyone who has studied Hebrew poetry should know what I'm talking about.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I personally agree with Helen and the Chicago Statement which is more expansive of her thought.
I have read of these redactors but do not know thier names,addresses or telephone numbers.
I guess my next question would be ,which parts of the Bible are not inspired and infallable if there are any?and what would someone who thinks that there are parts of the Bible which are not inspired or infallable use for authoratative reference?

 

[Bluefalcon]

I think the OT at the close of the Canon, sometime after the Babylonian Captivity, is totally inspired. Those who are only for the inspiration of the "original hand" are, in essense, in support of tearing away uninspired redacted material in order to get back to some lost original hand. Of course they don't see it that way, because they reject any redaction of any kind. But when obvious redaction exists and scholars recognize this, those who don't believe it and still hold to "total" inspiration are made to look silly.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Helen: //Wazamatta, you guys, "totally" didn't work?//

No

actually, 'totally' does not work. I'll admit
that 'totally' is perchance theologically correct, but
in practical aplication, that answer is meaningless.

I spent some 30,000 hours of my life as a software quality
inspector. I insisted that the documentation be correct by
having each mention of the same word have the same meaning.
For example "Dial-A' always had to be the dial on the upper-left
of the front. It never could be the dial on top with the 'A'
in the middle.
The Bible was NOT worded in this manner.

I've found at least six meanings of the word 'day' in the Bible.
Each occurance of 'day' in the Bible is in correct and inerrant
written word of God for us, but the meaning of 'day' varies.

I look up day in my 1976 dictionary and it has like 14 different
meanings. As I said, only about 6 are used in the Bible.
I also found that even the dictionary doesn't know about the
48-hour day. The 24-hour-on-earth day is true only on one point
on the earth. If you consider all points on the earth, each
named day (like today which is named "14 September 2005")

(Another interesting example is the word 'September'. The word
come from the Latin prefix 'sept' meaning 7. And in the
Roman Republic September was the 7th month. But the first Emperor,
Julius Ceasar, figured to have a month named after him and stole
a day from Feburary to make it a long, 31-day, month.
Agustus Caesar did likewise. So every time Feburary comes by with
only 28-days left you aught to remember that 'sept' means 7 but
is the 9th month of our year

)

So what does day mean?

In some places 'day' refers to the period of daylight only.
This time averages 12 hours but as far north as i live it can
run anytime from 7 to 17 hours. Another meaning that happens in
the Bible is a 24-hour period from say sunset to sunset.
In most of the prophetic writings 'day' means 'the appropriate time'.
But 'hour' means the same 'the appropriate time'. So in prophetic
writings 1 hour = 1 day (and for good sport 1 day = 1,000 years
in 2 Peter 3:8

).

So what does the inspired word 'day' mean in Genesis Chapter One?

I like my dictionary: 'DAY' - 9. period of existance, power,
or influence.

So 'totally' is a correct but impractical answer.

The best answer was probably that of bapmom: "I guess Ive always thought
of its inspiration as being separate from
my understanding of it. I mean, the Bible is inspired, not my grasp
of its teachings......."

Yep, the Bible is quite inerrant but our understanding of it
has errors. The Bible is totally inspired, but how do we go
about understaning it?

 

[Humblesmith]

Mr. Dragon:
This is not logic class, but apparently we need one. Syllogisms have only three terms, not four. You need a single middle term. Try again.

But you are correct in that my statement, although valid, is indeed inerrancy, not inspiration. I stand corrected.

However, God is a logical God. I don't think anyone would say He's illogical. Faith is also logical. I know of no one who came to Christ because they thought it was an illogical, absurd thing to do. So I'll make you a deal.....I'll be more careful expressing inerrancy and inspiration, if you'll correct your four term fallacy.

 

[Humblesmith]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
Here's a hint as to the two passages I brought up. In Hebrew textual criticism, "Lahmi" of 1 Chr. 20:5 is the same as the object "Bethlehemite" in 2 Sam. 21:19. Something got crossed up here. Also, the different names of Elhanan's father in both passages indicate another textual error, in one he is Jaareoregim, in the other just Jair. The "-oregim" is actually the word "weavers" as in the "beam of the weavers" at the end of both of the passages. This indicates where something else got crossed up in what is believed to be unintentional scribal error and unsuccesful scribal correcting of the error.

Well, I'll have to trust you on this one until I can pull out my hebrew text and do a little homework. So I'll take your word for it in the meanwhile.

However, maybe I'm dense, but I still don't get the point. I admitted up front that scribal errors are not inspired, only the original text is. You've pointed out what appears to be a known scribal error. So? Is this supposed to lessen inspiration of the original text?

And regarding the later comment about "son of..." I was trying to point out that "son of" is a phrase that can indicate immediate father, or grandfather, or multiple generations. So the two names, although different, aren't necessarily the same person. Jesus was "son of joseph" and "son of david" at the same time. No error, and certainly no lessening of the inspiration.

I'll go off now and do more homework. Thanks.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
Mr. Dragon:
This is not logic class, but apparently we need one. Syllogisms have only three terms, not four. You need a single middle term. Try again.

But you are correct in that my statement, although valid, is indeed inerrancy, not inspiration. I stand corrected.

However, God is a logical God. I don't think anyone would say He's illogical. Faith is also logical. I know of no one who came to Christ because they thought it was an illogical, absurd thing to do. So I'll make you a deal.....I'll be more careful expressing inerrancy and inspiration, if you'll correct your four term fallacy.

I wasn't suggesting that a fourth term was necessary. Just that the third term doesn't necessarily follow from the previous two in your syllogism. Or maybe that syllogisms themselves are full of problems.

Anyway, God is most definitely the God of logic. But he is most definitely not constrained by our logical understandings. Just because something appears logical to us, doesn't mean it is true.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
Faith is also logical. I know of no one who came to Christ because they thought it was an illogical, absurd thing to do.

I don't know if I agree that faith is logical. We can have logical approaches to faith. But ultimately, faith requires a step that I consider to be alogical which is neither logical nor illogical.

 

[Humblesmith]

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syllogism_topics.html

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/syllogism_topics.html

Great link.

I would recommend reading this section and applying it to your syllogism.

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic - Syllogistic Terminology, Part I

...

3. The third step is to test the syllogism by means of Venn Diagrams or the rules for validity. This might be a good time to review the symbols used to diagram the standard-form propositions.

a. The idea is to look at the logical geography of the premisses. If the argument is valid, the premisses should mark out the conclusion beyond doubt, without further markings.

b. The major premiss, "All P is M" would be diagrammed as the picture below. The diagram has been slanted so that it can be superimposed on the diagram for all three classes later.

c. The minor premiss, "All S is M" would be diagrammed as the picture below. It also has been slanted so it can be superimposed in the diagram above.

d. Putting both diagrams together on the representation of the S, P, and M classes would give a picture like the one below. Can we "read off" the conclusion without further markings? Is there any possibility of an S not being a P? Do diagramming the premisses without additional marking produce a diagram of the conclusion?

e. Since there is the possibility of an "S" being in the area marked, and it is outside of the P-area, the syllogism is invalid. Mr. William Meyer's syllogism is invalid. He might have a false premiss as well.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think a more robust syllogism would be :

1) All of God's words are inerrant.
2) All of the Bible is God's words.

3) Therefore, All of the bible is inerrant.

The challenge is our understanding of #2. We believe that the Bible is God's inspired words. Is that equivalent to being God's words as the phrase is used in statement #1? Inerrantists will say yes.

 

[Humblesmith]

That works. People must either deny that God expresses innerrant words, or deny that the Bible contains Gods words, or accept inerrancy.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
That works. People must either deny that God expresses innerrant words, or deny that the Bible contains Gods words, or accept inerrancy.

Another possible option I explained in my post is that the phrase "God's word" with respect to the bible is different from the phrase "God's word" that is inerrant in statement #1.

 

[robycop3]

I believe God's word appears AS HE CHOOSES, in any language, any valid version within any language. His intelligence, power, and purposes are infinitely greater than ours, so we must accept that whatever He does is ultimately for our good, whether or not we see and realize it at the time.

 

[here now]

Topic Question:
So the question is ,just how inspired is your Bible?


100% inspired by God.

 

[Humblesmith]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Humblesmith:
That works. People must either deny that God expresses innerrant words, or deny that the Bible contains Gods words, or accept inerrancy.

Another possible option I explained in my post is that the phrase "God's word" with respect to the bible is different from the phrase "God's word" that is inerrant in statement #1. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure that is what a lot of folks do. It's an equivocation, though........in effect, saying God's word is not God's word. That's why these logical syllogisms are so helpful. When done properly, it forces us to clarify our thinking.

 

[robycop3]

Sometimes sounds like another "Onlyist" myth to me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Humblesmith:
I'm sure that is what a lot of folks do. It's an equivocation, though........in effect, saying God's word is not God's word. That's why these logical syllogisms are so helpful. When done properly, it forces us to clarify our thinking.

While they are helpful, logical syllogisms are dependent on language since they are expressed using language.

The phrase "God's word" is not only a logical entity but a liguistic one. An in language, the same phrase can mean two different things.

For example, the following syllogism could also be stated.

1) All males in this forum are gay people.
2) All gay people are happy.

3) All males in this forum are happy.

Gay people is an ambiguous phrase that can mean at least two different things. And if the phrase has different meaning between statement 1 and 2, then the conclusion in statement 3 is not valid.

The possibility exists that the phrase "God's word" in statement 1 has underlying meaning that is different from "God's word" in statement 2 such that our syllogism is not valid.