On inerrancy - and how to understand it

[ena]

One thing I remember reading recently, which was kind of a surprise: in the past, 'reading' and 'writing' were totally separate topics. Many people could read - but relatively few learned to WRITE - it is a fine muscle hand skill, and not everyone had the time or inclination to learn it. So many people might be able to read something, but would not be able to reproduce it by hand. They would be able to read a document, and sign it perhaps, but would not have learned how to shape letters, how to hold a quill or pencil or brush...they would dictate to a professional scribe who DID know how to write - and many of them relied on the scribes to 'make it sound right'.

Scribes were often also translators, so they could listen to dictation in one language and would write 'the sense' of it in a different one.

As usual you are quite accurate. Reading and writing are different skills. You learn to read before you write more than your name. I learned to write my name in kindergarten. Just memorized the squiggles. The second problem is the people spoke Aramaic. Did the Apostles know Greek? The words of Jesus suffer multiple translations before getting to English. Did you know that Matthew was first written Hebrew. It is debatable that the Hebrew was Aramaic. John Foxe reports this in his section on Matthew. Look up Matthew Hebrew. You will get a number of hits. I love this stuff. My Great Grand Mother could not read. She died before I was born. My sister remembered her. I think she died in 1945. We are not far from illiteracy ourselves in the past or future. Texting has probably done more for literacy. IMHO My granddaughters text. This becomes problematic with: 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter. The gospels are anonymous.

[ena]

The Gospels were written many years after the fact. They conflict with each other. That is only a problem if you consider the Bible inerrant. The stories come from different oral traditions. The final product varies. I am using the resurrection story in all four gospels looking at details.
1=Matthew 20, 2=Mark 16 3=Luke 24 and 4=John 20.
Is the tomb open or closed?
1. Closed Angel rolled the door away.
2. Open
3. Open
4. Open
Is it a vote?
Who went to the tomb?
1. Mary Magdalene, other Mary.
2. Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
3. Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them. Peter runs there.
4. Mary Magdalene. Peter and another run there.
How many Angels or young men
1. One angel
2. Young man sitting in tomb
3. Two men with shining garments
4. Two angels
I gave you the chapters. There are more differences.
Does it really matter? Only to an inerrantist.
It really does not matter much.

I personally believe that it is important to accept the Bible as it is warts and all rather than claim it to be something it is not. This can backfire big time. It did with me. I have no problem with a errant Bible as I have been that way for years. Some people get scared when they base their faith on inerrancy. Farrell Till who came on the board at one time called himself a happy atheist, He thought errancy was a big deal. I know he knew a lot about Old Testament errancy I wish I knew enough to look at that. He saw math errors in Jewish scriptures. I suspect he may have been looking at something cultural as I may have doing on Matthew's genealogy. Inerrancy may create Atheists when they find out otherwise. It did for me.

[KLP]

Essentially the author and others are insisting that they are inerrant in claiming that they know who did or didn't write some part of the Bible. It is this absolute mindset that is faulting another absolute mindset...pot and kettle IMO.

You want a black and white world. It isn't. There is a multude of shades of grey. I had trouble with this for many years. The Denominations are not evil but an artifact of Christian History. Most of them know their own history. Does the CoC? Oh we were there on the day of Penticost! Where is your ancient copy of the Greek Bible? The Catholic Church has one. The Greek Orthodox Church had one and many others. In fact when you go back into history Constantine rolled Christianity into one by 325 AD you could argue a few years earlier. The one true Church is Catholic or split of it.
The Theological World is larger than you wrap your brain around.

I do not care whether you agree or disagree. You don't seem to be able disagree and move on.
Look back at the post I gave Agricola. Did Jeremiah say that? The author of Matthew made an error. I don't call him a liar because he sometimes comes though brilliantly. He is error prone because much his stuff came from memory. He made 6 errors in his genealogy. He did not have a pocket Old Testament. It is the nature of the age he lived in.

Frickin hilarious ena, what a screwed up world view you are presenting. So you have to assert that that only guy here who is for diversity and says that the topic is not knowable and that all opinions are equal choices and options...that is the opinion you cannot tolerate and have to go with your "label" as black/white. Frickin hilarious...and so then you throw in all sorts of stuff to distract from your twisted logic that attempts to paint the one person who argues that it is curious at best to claim "inerrancy" on the uh...the topic of "inerrancy". Yes, frickin hilarious. I hope we don't agree because then I would be as illogical and driven by conformancy as are you.

[B.H.]

KLP,

How would you know which is right?

[ena]

KLP,

How would you know which is right?

He doesn't. He cannot tell me whether the Codex Sinaiticus is inerrant or later copies. The problem is with the source documents. There are later additions. The copies were made by hand. The accuracy of the copy depended on the scribe. Missing is Mark 16 verses 9-20. The Woman Caught in Adultery is missing. There are changes to Lord's Prayer. The source documents have been messed with. In effect there is some corruption that is known to scholars. Do you have this problem with the Koran?

This link shows the difference between Sinaiticus and King James in English. This caused the King James to be revised in England 1n 1882. They call it RV for revised version. In did not happen that way in the US. I haven't checked the American Standard of 1901. There are other differences and problems. I don't think the Bible is junk, just that there are problems that many do not know about and have a tough time dealing with. God does not like Pharisees either Christian or Jewish. Guess who Jesus had problems with? Does it make sense to think the Bible is Inerrant when you cannot know.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... testament/

I listened to a American Islamic Scholar. He is marked by ISIS. Probably because he made sense.

[KLP]

KLP,

How would you know which is right?

And that is the point I keep asking BH...how can folks, like in the OP, say who exactly did or didn't write a document which no longer exists? But those on here who claim to be wary of "inerrancy" sure seem to line up that they know this or that as "fact" and "beyond debate". My position is that each person can choose and decide since each person is individually responsible. Of course having actual freedom of choice upsets some people. You will notice that ena continues the straw man argument since that seemingly is familiar comfort zone. ena is seemingly only comfortable in a black/white world of us/them and establishing a particular way of thinking.

This is similar to the argument for the random happenstance of the universe and life. These folks have no way to know how it all came to be, but then they will line up to a man asserting that the one thing they know for sure is that God does not exists and that the Bible account is not true. But then merrily go on about saying that of course everything else is theory and hypothesis...because nothing can be proved or known since no one has a video from 13 billion years ago. So in order to fault the concept of inerrancy, this POV has to engage in a practice of inerrancy by asserting that they know a "negative"...they somehow "know" what didn't happen or who didn't write something. A negative that cannot be proved yet is claimed as fact and beyond dispute. That is not knowledge, that is bias/POV and the conclusion is decided at the get go no matter how many terms are thrown in to the mix. So Jews reject Jesus...it is not news and the arguments are long established. To claim that any one person or group is not driven by a particular bias or belief or a boat load of family/life choices/consequences is just silly IMO but yes it does make people feel better to think that everyone else is that bias and bad ones....it is the ena style of black/white thinking.

[B.H.]

But KLP I am not talking about those people I am talking about you. How do you, Keep Low Profile, know you are right?

[teresa]

I relate to what KLP says. Folks seem to think that KLP is arguing for inerrancy in his above posts, but that is not the way I am reading his posts. He isn't telling us one way or another what he believes about inerrancy. He is doing what I sometimes do, which is to stand back and look at HOW people are making arguments, rather than the content of those arguments.

I think KLP is similar to me, in that I am a supreme skeptic. I essentially think we can be sure of nothing, but I didn't realize that, until a friend of mine said, "Well, let's start with your name. You can be sure your name is....." And my response was "Maybe". So if someone says we can be sure of this or that, I think to myself, that we can never be sure of anything. Even if we are 99.99% sure, there is always a chance we could be wrong, unless we are omniscient.

So when someone tells me this or that is not a theory but rather a conclusion, I have to put myself into the other person's shoes to understand them. Some people are not skeptics the way I am a skeptic. I have to remind myself that doesn't mean they are a black-and-white thinker necessarily. Essentially they have more trust than I do in the world. A preponderance of evidence (as they see it) is enough for them to feel sure about something, but that doesn't mean they are not open to gathering more info over time and changing their mind. It could mean that, of course, but not necessarily.

[B.H.]

Maybe so teresa but I would like to hear what KLP thinks himself. He is my friend and will not mind if I put him on the spot a little bit.

[KLP]

I am skeptical to be sure. But I think and know that I tend towards being cynical as well. Certainly I am wary and distrustful of those who use language of certainty and engage in overstatement and seemingly cannot recognize or will not acknowledge they are beyond the realm of certainty. And this brings up an interesting IMO area of discussion about what is faith and belief...and to such an extent that that one acts on that faith/belief. Teresa alludes a bit to this, but a similar topic question is can philosophy be used to discern/know/prove something that is beyond the scientific or natural realm?

So all the classes and sermons on "evidences/proofs" were eagerly awaited when I was younger...but I came to realize that it is turtles all the way down and that there is no proof. But really nothing can ever be confirmed be it a 13billion year universe, manmade global warming, or Creator God Jesus. IMO that is the whole point of faith and choice and love...it requires one to accept and believe. Nothing is knowable and so choice is required...even if people deny they are acting out a choice.

I only bring up the Black/White thinking phrase because ena tried to use it as a label and tool to marginalize me. So I will shove whatever crap people are pushing on me back on to them. That is another impact of leaving the CofC....I will not try to make nice and think things will just get better...you have to call bull$hit on people who try to insult, label, and marginalize. And you have to do it right out of the gate before they establish their position. Because the mods let this go, I defend myself.