The Fundamentals. Part 1: Inerrancy of the Bible.

[Ricardo]

NOTE: This conversation will be mostly regarding the New Testament.

Even the most adamant KJVO adept will grudgingly admit that no English translation can be considered inerrant. All bibles out there are translation from Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) manuscripts. So an artificial construct has been devised: It is the “original autographs” the ones that are inerrant.

Considering the skepticism regarding the golden plates that Joseph Smith used as basis for his Book of Mormon, (despite the notarized statements from eleven witnesses,) few Christians notice the irony of declaring inerrancy for the words from an original autograph nobody has seen. Not a single notarized copy.

When asked about this state of affairs, most pastors will fall back on plan B: “Pay no attention to the non-existent originals. We have an embarrassment of riches: We have five to six thousand manuscripts confirming the words…” Wait a sec: if we do not have the originals, how can we say... never mind.

Manuscripts, especially from the first few centuries AD were notoriously error prone. No two manuscripts are identical. There is not one complete manuscript. Some of the manuscripts are just a few verses; some have one or two books. Some manuscripts have within them other books such as the Didache, not in the Protestant canon, but approved by millions of other Christians.

Take ten minutes to compare three lines from each one of the codices from the exercise at the end of this Textual Criticism course from Earlham College: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/exercise.html The complexities of this work will become apparent. I can't even begin to imagine the patience of those great men of God who devoted whole lifetimes deciphering manuscripts.

“Well,” the beginner might say, “shall we choose, for one specific verse, the wording found in a majority of the manuscripts?” Not necessarily.

For one specific verse, a thousand manuscripts may match up with the same wording, with the number of matches for alternative wordings not even coming close. But, it may be that the thousand manuscripts where this verse is identical are all from the same family of manuscripts which can only be traced to the early 900s. Meanwhile, four of the five oldest manuscripts containing this verse, from 400 AD, match with an alternate word. (The fifth manuscript doesn’t have that line.)

Someone has to choose, make a decision. How can we claim inerrancy for this process? Do we need to?

The current accepted text of the Greek New Testament, which is used as basis for all new translations, is the NA27. (Nestle/Aland version 27.) The changes in the prior NA versions are not about how to translate a specific word. (We are dealing with the manuscripts in the original Greek.) The changes that have been made in the previous 26 versions have been changes to the words themselves. (And they are already working on version 28.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece

To summarize: “Plan A: Inerrancy of the English Bible” never worked. “Plan B: Inerrancy of the Autographs” doesn’t buy us much because we don’t have the autographs, nor any error-proof way of determining the original words.

It is no wonder that most IFB churches latch on to the King James Version as the one and only, as God’s own word. It is so much easier to be KJVO, rather than have to deal with the complexities of this subject.

What is Plan C?

Many fundamentalist, who have not really thought about this, think that this it is an “All or nothing” decision: “Either we can trust this is THE word of God, or we should throw it all out.”

So how did the apostles and early Christians preach the good news of Jesus if they did not have a New Testament and they did not claim inerrancy for themselves? What made people believe them? What would make people believe us? Are we preaching Faith in God or faith in a book?

The inerrancy doctrine comes in part out of a historical accident: When Luther decided to stand up to the Pope regarding indulgences, he didn’t stand a chance if it was his opinion against the Pope’s word. Luther had no other choice but to lean on the Bible as his source of Truth. In the process, the role of the bible was elevated to a level where it is just about the fourth member of the Trinity, at the same time that the weight of the Church and the Magisterium (Church traditions,) had to be minimized or even eliminated.

How do we account for the millions of Christians who continue reading their bibles and are blessed in many ways by this study, even though they have a different canon than ours? Most fundamentalist have decided to write them off as “lost” Christians. (An image that comes to mind is of American Christian tourists in the Holy Land trying to “convert” the Orthodox monks who manage some of the Holy sites.)

One option is to declare as inerrant not a specific collection of words but instead, the specific collection of doctrines contained in the bible. But even this is a stop-gap measure. We would then have to go into how the various lists of books were compiled. Sooner or later we would have to give much more weight to the Church Traditions, which is where the canons come from.

I invite you to remember the change in your frame of reference when you left your fundamentalist church. The “light bulb” moment when you realized that there are perfectly good Christians outside of IFB churches, when you realized that leaving the IFB church was not abandoning your salvation or your faith in God.

Letting go of the inerrancy doctrine will encourage you to pay more attention to your personal relationship with God and to the traditions of the church. Without inerrancy doctrine we free up resources that can be used to better share our experience of a living God.

But if we do not have an inerrant bible, with what authority can we preach? We preach with the same authority as Peter, Paul, Silas, Timothy and anyone else: we are simple witnesses, recipients of a love that surpasses all understanding. All I can say is “Try it, you’ll like it.”

Inerrancy is about power, about control of orthodoxy. Fortunately, God is much bigger than that.

One fundamental down, four to go.

[Tiarali]

But... you used logic! That's cheating!

At my church they quoted Psalm 12:6,7

Quote:The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Then they said: God's words aren't going to disappear. They're going to be kept perfectly. And they've just got to be in my language, so it must be the kjv!

[pastor's wife]

I don't believe the KJV is the only Bible. It is a translation, as the original translators told us (and which KJV-only folks ignore).

However, I do believe the Bible is inerrant. Without the Bible, all I have is my person beliefs about a God I've made up things about. I can't even say my EXPERIENCES because that's subjective and overall relatively minor: like once I prayed that it wouldn't rain until we got something from Home Depot inside the house. The moment we got inside, it POURED. I thanked God for His answer to prayer, but if things like that were all I had to base my belief upon, I would have nothing substantial to stand on when my dreams turn to dust around me. When tragedies strike, I want more than my hopes and wishes and my vague experiences: I put my faith in God, and what I know about Him as revealed in the Bible.

Quote:So how did the apostles and early Christians preach the good news of Jesus if they did not have a New Testament and they did not claim inerrancy for themselves? What made people believe them? What would make people believe us? Are we preaching Faith in God or faith in a book?

They had the Old Testament Scriptures. Over and over again, they quoted from the Old Testament to verify and substantiate what they were saying.

Quote:The inerrancy doctrine comes in part out of a historical accident: When Luther decided to stand up to the Pope regarding indulgences, he didn’t stand a chance if it was his opinion against the Pope’s word. Luther had no other choice but to lean on the Bible as his source of Truth. In the process, the role of the bible was elevated to a level where it is just about the fourth member of the Trinity, at the same time that the weight of the Church and the Magisterium (Church traditions,) had to be minimized or even eliminated.

I'd hate to call the Reformation a "historical accident." And I would a million times prefer to trust the Bible than church traditions, formed and shaped by not only wise and humble scholars but also by crooked and fallible men who desired power and wealth. Political machinations have shaped the decisions of the Catholic church throughout the centuries (as tends to happen when any denomination gains political clout). WHY would I follow a church tradition, handed down (and distorted) throughout generations? I would much rather trust the Word of God.

Quote:But if we do not have an inerrant bible, with what authority can we preach? We preach with the same authority as Peter, Paul, Silas, Timothy and anyone else: we are simple witnesses, recipients of a love that surpasses all understanding. All I can say is “Try it, you’ll like it.”

Peter, Paul, Silas, Timothy, and others referenced the Scriptures - the Old Testament. And the original apostles were actual witnesses - to Jesus' miracles and His death and resurrection. They saw it; they proclaimed it.

Without the Bible - which reveals the God I believe in and trust - I have nothing more than my fanciful pretences without reality.
It turned Christianity into nothing more than any good experience someone might have: "Try peyote. You'll like it." "Try Wicca - you'll like it." No, there's a foundational truth to Christianity and that is the Bible.

[Elijah Craig]

Inerrancy doesn't refer to the text base. Please try again.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-05-2011 11:47 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  the NT is the best documented piece of historical work that we have and is more reliable than any other book of antiquity.

For Western culture or world culture?

Why are there so many translations and commentaries if it's such a reliable book?

Also...I have no knowledge of the NT as a historical document so these are genuine curiosity questions. Not looking to pick a fight

[pastor's wife]

I don't think the fact that there are so many translations and commentaries means it's unreliable, but rather that it's so rich and full of meaning. There's so much to explore and ponder and compare and discuss. It's also a very LARGE book, so there's a lot to write about it!

While Beowulf for example is interesting and certainly contains powerful, mythic motifs and themes, it doesn't even compare in complexity and broadness of scope to the Bible.

And since language changes so much throughout the years, I think it's good to check if older translations are still accurately reflecting the original words. And certainly a new translation will bring in money - I can't ignore that that may be a factor in why another translation might be done -- just for sales.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-05-2011 12:19 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 12:14 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  For Western culture or world culture?

world

That's a mighty bold statement. What do you have to back it up?

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-05-2011 01:45 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 01:25 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  That's a mighty bold statement. What do you have to back it up?

I've read this in books and other sources but wiki confirms it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other "ancient" work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from c. 125 (the John Ryland's manuscript, P52; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament (at least in part) than there are for any other ancient writing (e.g., we only have 10 copies of Julius Caesar's 'The Gallic Wars'), this does not mean that the exact form of the text preserved in these later,

The rest of that article goes on to say how many of these manuscripts are not exact copies and that literally no two manuscripts are alike.

Also, just because the bible was quite prolific via copying does not mean it's automatically more reliable or historically documented. A shitty copy is still a shitty copy and no amount of polishing will make it better. The Mahabharata is quite extensive and has also been thoroughly researched and commented on too. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali are approximately around the same period as the bible and they are considered to be pretty intact over the years. The Tao Te Ching has been copied and commented on and referenced for around 2000 years as well.

[Mathis]

(11-05-2011 01:45 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(11-05-2011 01:25 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  That's a mighty bold statement. What do you have to back it up?

I've read this in books and other sources but wiki confirms it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

+1 for quoting wiki!

I believe the Bible translations most modern Christians use are innerent. Sure there are syntax and numerical discrepencies, but the amazing thing is there dispite these differences, there are no doctrinal errors. I heard of a story where a publisher accidentally forgot to put a "not" in one of the 10 Commandments. Proptly that book was decried. God promises to preserve His word. Does that mean every little minute detail? Perhaps if you are dealing with the original documents which are no longer around sure, but we are left with a book that has no original manuscripts. Bar the small gramatical mistakes, and the clear issues of doctrinal fallicies due to scribal error, yes Scripture is innerent.

It is when man places his hand upon it in an effort to perfect the Word or change something that it becomes corrupt.

The only proof I have that the Word is innerent is my faith, and that will never be shaken.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-05-2011 03:25 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  There's no raging debate about any of Homer's epic works and there's a handful of extant early manuscripts from it. The very fact that are SO MANY of the NT means that there will, of necessity, be copyist errors and the like. The very fact that there are so many also means that, as I mentioned, the deviations are fairly obvious.

I didn't use Homer for that reason. What I am saying is that there are very old, historical documents that have been copiously copied, studied, and commented on that are outside of Western canon. These documents are just as important in those cultures as the bible is to us. The bible is not special for the reasons you state.

Another thing to consider is that with the ascendency of Christianity, many non-Christian documents were either neglected or outright destroyed. Just because there are so many copies of the bible, does that mean that might = right? Again, a copy is a copy is a copy is a copy. If the base text wasn't right to begin with, does it really matter what the copies say?