OT Redaction is Clear - So How Can Anyone Still Hold to Inerrancy?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

NOTHING in the hands of human beings is inerrant or infallible because humans are fallible. They are interpretations of divine inspirations received by human beings who lacked valid knowledge of reality and had primitive beliefs and barbaric superstitions about God. Their mindset was that everything was from God or of God or done by God or ordered by God and God needed to be appeased. It was a pervasive and dominant mindset of the time that colored everything they thought or wrote, period. There is no way what they wrote could be inerrant.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am here to Defend Christianity not attack it. I am not in opposition to God. I am in opposition to thinking the Bible is God or God's word. Jesus the Christ is God's Word . . . NOT the Bible. The New Covenant says Christ abides with us as the Living Word of God. If the words "written in ink" contradict what the Holy Spirit (Comforter) guides us to that God has "written in our hearts" . . . we follow what God has "written in our hearts." (WWJT) It is the Christians who do NOT believe the New Covenant who reject Christ and the guidance in their hearts for the ancient words "written in ink." They are the ones attacking God and His Word. They believe we are like our ancient ancestors BEFORE Christ. They could NOT trust what was in their heart because God had not yet instituted the New Covenant and "written in their hearts" and they did not have the Comforter to guide them to it.

Originally Posted by sschulz

Hi MysticPhd The Bible is not inerrant, but Scripture is. The Bible is not Scripture, it is a translation of Scripture. When translating from one language to another the person doing the interpretation does not know the infection and other things of the other language. God hides his word from some because as Jesus said when asked why He spoke in parables He said because it is not given for them to understand---at this time. God will reveal his words to who He chooses at the correct time. The smartest man in the world will not understand Scripture unless and until God opens his eyes to it.

Originally Posted by augiedogie

My guess is that lots of people, just like this fellow, on this forum know very little about how we end up with an English Bible like the NIV or the NKJV or any of the many others, have never seen the Greek New Testament, can't read a word of it, and don't know from what it is produced. Most haven't even studied it extensively.

That would be a very bad guess, augie!

Its best for Bible believing Christians to ignore what these people say, for they are merely parroting what they have heard from some college professor or other source that hates Christianity. IN my case, going to the seminary was part of an individual quest; to know the truth. What I've found over the years, as I have studied more and more, I increasingly become convinced that the Bible is God's Holy Word, preserved by Him

If that were true . . . the God described in it would be worse than the worst imaginations of Satan. But it is NOT TRUE!. Christ is the Living Word of God and He abides with us under the New Covenant. His Holy Spirit (Comforter) is within our consciousness to guide us to the truth God has "written in our hearts." Those who do NOT believe the New Covenant persist in following the words "written in ink" and believing the things that our ignorant ancient ancestors believed about a jealous, vengeful God who needed to be appeased by blood sacrifice.

and given to man so that we might know the one true God and how we may be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

True . . . but those who do not believe the New Covenant and reject what Christ revealed about the true nature of God, They are part of the prophesied anti-Christ apostasy that the majority would follow in the latter days. Hint: It IS the latter days.

Well, does not look like anyone can or is willing to address the OP.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Well, does not look like anyone can or is willing to address the OP.

Since you ask...The fact of material in the Bible, New and O t's, appearing to be either errant through miscopying or mistranslation (the arguments about Almah/Bethulah), or the supposed prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalms is well - known), or discrepant accounts of this or that event (e.g the two apparently different accounts of the creation, or the differing two sets of Commandments or claimed contradictions or indeed historically wrong Bible- events) is undeniable.

What is contested is that they really are (minor copying errors being accepted) discrepancies, contradictions or historical inaccuracy.

Let me first deal with this errors creeping in thing. I accept that, apart from some possible copying and translation errors, the bible text as we have it is in all important respects, not altered by miscopying or mistranslation. This is not really the question. The question is whether the Bible was factually correct when it was first written, or is full of such contradicton and inaccuracies that it is totally unbelievable, even if not one single error of copying or translation has been made.

Let me also deal with the argument from metaphor or symbolism. This is irrelevant, as it is an admission that what is in the Bible may not be factually true, but it is symbolically true of what the facts really were (which is a very arguable claim) or metaphorically true. That is a matter of belief and not a matter of textual criticism.

Others argue that -and this is really addressing to OP - that the apparent errors, discrepancies and contradictions are not really so, but are not properly understood.

I have seen most of the arguments that are marshalled against claims of discrepancy, contradiction and historical unreliability. From genesis does not agree with science, to Matthew says the disciples went to Galilee whereas Luke says they did not.

There are many ingenious ways of explaining these apparent discrepancies, but let me first point out that the op mentioned 'redaction'. This is rather specific and addresses, not so much historically doubtful Bible events like the exodus or Flood and ark, or the Bethlehem slaughter the Passover release custom, but more comparing one passage with another and noting contradiction. The Matthew- Luke return to Galilee, staying in Jerusalem one for example.

No, I am not going to argue it here, but to note the explanations. They fall into two main categories:

(1) both events really happened, but not all the gospels (redaction really works well on the gospels ) mention them. Thus it is argued that Matthew knew very well that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem praising God, but took a bit of time out to go to Galilee as Jesus instructed them. That was what was important for him to mention. and Luke knew very well (or maybe he just didn't) that the disciples had gone to Galilee as instructed (1) but it wasn't important to him. What was important to him were the many appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem after they had ...ahhh..gone to see him in Galilee, and returned and he gave them this 40 day series of talks on the kingdom of God (Acts 1) after they had returned.

(2) two similar - looking events, if there are too many differences to explain away (2) then it is claimed to be a similar but different occurrence. Example, the 'temple cleansing' at John 2.13 sure looks like the one in Mark (11.15) Matthew (21.12) and Luke (19.45) (not in John, where one would expect to find it after 12.12 -15. Evidently John's author didn't think this 'important'). But it is right at the beginning of the story, before Jesus has begin his mission.

So the explanation is that it must be a different, earlier, temple - cleansing.

There is also the business of explaining away as much as possible as 'witnesses don't always agree' and perhaps writing in some extra explanation to get over this or that problem - the 'Jesus did many other things' explanation, but that is how it generally works.

(1) I can't resist it - except that he changed the instruction (Luke 24.6) so that Jesus doesn't tell them to go to Galilee, and that will tell you why this explanation is not true, and the contradiction is real and is evidence that the gospel - writers were not reliable reporters of the facts.
As to what that does to Christ's message - it utterly discredits it.

(2) Matthew's reference to two donkeys (Matth. 21) - the others specifically say One - can and has been explained in various ways.

[trumpethim]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Since you ask...The fact of material in the Bible, New and O t's, appearing to be either errant through miscopying or mistranslation (the arguments about Almah/Bethulah), or the supposed prophecy of the crucifixion in Psalms is well - known), or discrepant accounts of this or that event (e.g the two apparently different accounts of the creation, or the differing two sets of Commandments or claimed contradictions or indeed historically wrong Bible- events) is undeniable.

What is contested is that they really are (minor copying errors being accepted) discrepancies, contradictions or historical inaccuracy.

Let me first deal with this errors creeping in thing. I accept that, apart from some possible copying and translation errors, the bible text as we have it is in all important respects, not altered by miscopying or mistranslation. This is not really the question. The question is whether the Bible was factually correct when it was first written, or is full of such contradicton and inaccuracies that it is totally unbelievable, even if not one single error of copying or translation has been made.

Let me also deal with the argument from metaphor or symbolism. This is irrelevant, as it is an admission that what is in the Bible may not be factually true, but it is symbolically true of what the facts really were (which is a very arguable claim) or metaphorically true. That is a matter of belief and not a matter of textual criticism.

Others argue that -and this is really addressing to OP - that the apparent errors, discrepancies and contradictions are not really so, but are not properly understood.

I have seen most of the arguments that are marshalled against claims of discrepancy, contradiction and historical unreliability. From genesis does not agree with science, to Matthew says the disciples went to Galilee whereas Luke says they did not.

There are many ingenious ways of explaining these apparent discrepancies, but let me first point out that the op mentioned 'redaction'. This is rather specific and addresses, not so much historically doubtful Bible events like the exodus or Flood and ark, or the Bethlehem slaughter the Passover release custom, but more comparing one passage with another and noting contradiction. The Matthew- Luke return to Galilee, staying in Jerusalem one for example.

No, I am not going to argue it here, but to note the explanations. They fall into two main categories:

(1) both events really happened, but not all the gospels (redaction really works well on the gospels ) mention them. Thus it is argued that Matthew knew very well that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem praising God, but took a bit of time out to go to Galilee as Jesus instructed them. That was what was important for him to mention. and Luke knew very well (or maybe he just didn't) that the disciples had gone to Galilee as instructed (1) but it wasn't important to him. What was important to him were the many appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem after they had ...ahhh..gone to see him in Galilee, and returned and he gave them this 40 day series of talks on the kingdom of God (Acts 1) after they had returned.

(2) two similar - looking events, if there are too many differences to explain away (2) then it is claimed to be a similar but different occurrence. Example, the 'temple cleansing' at John 2.13 sure looks like the one in Mark (11.15) Matthew (21.12) and Luke (19.45) (not in John, where one would expect to find it after 12.12 -15. Evidently John's author didn't think this 'important'). But it is right at the beginning of the story, before Jesus has begin his mission.

So the explanation is that it must be a different, earlier, temple - cleansing.

There is also the business of explaining away as much as possible as 'witnesses don't always agree' and perhaps writing in some extra explanation to get over this or that problem - the 'Jesus did many other things' explanation, but that is how it generally works.

(1) I can't resist it - except that he changed the instruction (Luke 24.6) so that Jesus doesn't tell them to go to Galilee, and that will tell you why this explanation is not true, and the contradiction is real and is evidence that the gospel - writers were not reliable reporters of the facts.
As to what that does to Christ's message - it utterly discredits it.

(2) Matthew's reference to two donkeys (Matth. 21) - the others specifically say One - can and has been explained in various ways.

Thank you for that explanation! I wrote a post not long ago, in that I mentioned the Olivet Discourse. We can tear the Gospel writers apart if we wish, but I found that the writers were looking at things from their own perspectives, and instead of negating the narratives of the other writers, each writer, in his perspective, compliments the other three, and in many cases gives information that we would not have seen any other way, and verifies and gives clues to correct understanding of what is really meant.

In the case of the Olivet Discourse for instance, after dissecting the perspectives of the three writers, I have found that Jesus verifies a huge amount of scripture ranging throughout the whole Bible. And many things, such as the reason for the destruction of the Temple, the sequential timing of the Second Coming, the mystery of iniquity, the Abomination of Desolation, and many other things, are fully described if we understand this use of the writers being a complimentary witness.

Unfortunately, if we continue to focus on trying to negate the authority of the Bible, we fulfill the saying of Jesus in Matthew 13:14,15, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, and John 12:40

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. I of course will not agree with you, but this is not the place to discuss it. I was just trying to answer the Q. posed in the OP.

[augiedogie]

Shiloh: I guess I'll have to lay it out for you in simple terms. To gain confidence in the innerancy in the Holy Bible it is necessary to study; extensively. What you are looking for, as far as a defense goes, requires far far more than a post on an internet forum. I gave you the road map. Go to a seminary or similar school that believes in Biblical inerrancy. Enroll, take a bunch of classes, learn, study, read. You will probably need to learn some of the original languages. If this is too much, then talk to a well educated pastor who believes in Biblical inerrancy, and study under him. But if you are not ready to commit the time and energy, then I guess you'll always have some doubts, and probably remain a skeptic. There are books on the topic. I'm sure you could still find Josh MacDowell's fine books on the subject. That might provide some help. May God go with you. But you are asking for the world to put it all on an internet post. Especially if, as usually happens, some people do some extensive writing on a topic, and then gets blown off by someone who didn't even take the time to read and reflect on what was written.

Originally Posted by augiedogie

Shiloh: I guess I'll have to lay it out for you in simple terms. To gain confidence in the innerancy in the Holy Bible it is necessary to study; extensively. What you are looking for, as far as a defense goes, requires far far more than a post on an internet forum. I gave you the road map. Go to a seminary or similar school that believes in Biblical inerrancy. Enroll, take a bunch of classes, learn, study, read. You will probably need to learn some of the original languages. If this is too much, then talk to a well educated pastor who believes in Biblical inerrancy, and study under him. But if you are not ready to commit the time and energy, then I guess you'll always have some doubts, and probably remain a skeptic. There are books on the topic. I'm sure you could still find Josh MacDowell's fine books on the subject. That might provide some help. May God go with you. But you are asking for the world to put it all on an internet post. Especially if, as usually happens, some people do some extensive writing on a topic, and then gets blown off by someone who didn't even take the time to read and reflect on what was written.

First, I am asking a simple question given the points in the OP - how can anyone, given these problems, hold to inerrancy.

Second, the fact that you assume that I have not done all those things tells me that you think those who do not hold to inerrancy are clueless and only if by studying they will alleviate all their doubts. I have done ALL of those things. Now what are you going ask me to do instead of answering the simple question? I used to be a Christian and further studying actually led me away from Christianity.

Let me add also that I have taken plenty of classes on Linguistics as well.

Have you done all of those things?