A standing request…
For all of the Mormons who claim that inerrancy is not taught in the Bible, please show me where the doctrine of the “errant” and “fallible” word of God is taught in the Bible.
GUNDECK
Thoughts and Devotions
For all of the Mormons who claim that inerrancy is not taught in the Bible, please show me where the doctrine of the “errant” and “fallible” word of God is taught in the Bible.
GB,
I am sorry I accidentally deleted your comment before I could read it. If it is not to much trouble can you resubmit where the bible teaches itself to be errant and fallible.
Well, I don’t remember what I posted.
But I think it is obvious that people (excluding Christ) are errant and fallible. The Bible comes to us through errant and fallible people.
Therefore it is obvious that the Bible is errant and fallible.
If an obvious error is found in the Bible would that be proof enough of errancy and fallibility?
Also I assume you subscribe to the self contradictory doctrine of sola scriptura, is this correct?
If so, then the burden of proof of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible rest squarely upon your shoulders.
And just so you know, I have been kicked off of Markcares site, so I am unable to respond to your questions there.
I find it rather humorous that he is complaining about Mormons being non-responsive when he bans us from his site.
I am sorry again for deleting your comment. My no script filter was acting up and I didn’t pay attention to what I was clicking. Totally my fault.
So the Bible claims to be in error in what passage?
GD: So the Bible claims to be in error in what passage?
GB: The Bible is a collection of books it doesn’t claim anything about itself.
Were the authors of those books errant and fallible? Could they make mistakes while writing scripture?
Was it a mistake for Matthew to attribute the words of Zechariah to Jeremiah? See Matt 27:9 with Zech 11:13
If God didn’t prevent Matthew from making that mistake, how can you assume inerrancy and infallibility for the rest of it?
Also we have.
Matt. 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
(Note: No staves {plural of staff} allowed)
Now compare to
Mark 6:8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
(Note: not only is a staff allow but required.)
Now did Jesus prohibit the taking of a staff or not?
GB,
I assume that you have not attempted to answer the question. Show me where the doctrine of the “errant” and “fallible” word of God is taught in the Bible.
Are those errors or are you just incapable of finding an explanation.
There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for each of those passages. For instance Jeremiah does make part of the prophesy (Jer 19:1–13) in Matt 27:9&10 so is it a mistake for Matthew to attribute this prophesy to Jeremiah the more prominent of the two prophets?
While you are so interested in errors you probably missed the connection to with Mark 6:8–9 and Exodus 12:11. You point to the most obvious answer to the sending of the 12 when you point to the plural of staff, but I have heard equally cogent answers.
Oh please!!
So
1 Thus saith the Lord, Go and get a potter’s earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests;
2 And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee,
3 And say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.
4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;
5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
6 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.
7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.
9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
10 Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee,
11 And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.
12 Thus will I do unto this place, saith the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet:
13 And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods.
Is what Matthew meant when he said,
9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.
And NOT,
13 And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.
????????
What ever dude!
GB,
You don’t have to like it, you only have to acknowledge that this is a reasonable explanation that has been accepted by many in the Church.
Besides it has nothing to do with my question, where does the Bible claim to be in error.
But it isn’t a reasonable explanation.
Period!
You just don’t want to accept the obvious, because it totally destroys the concept of Bible inerrancy and infallibility.
Where does the Bible claim to be in inerrant or infallible?
NOWHERE!
If the Bible doesn’t claim inerrancy or infallibility for itself, the WHY do you believe it?
I understand why you want to put the burden of proof on others. It is because you can’t support your position with scripture.
GB,
The Bible claims to be the Word of God, when God speaks it is without error, this is the historic position of the the Church, the burden of proof is on you.
I can support my position (Psalm 19 a single example) you have yet to attempt to support yours.
GD: The Bible claims to be the Word of God,. . .
GB: The Bible is a collection of books, and makes no claims for itself.
GD: . . . when God speaks it is without error,
GB: True. BUT He rarely speaks in a verbal manor and most often transmits pure light and knowledge to errant and fallible humans who must use an errant and fallible human language to pass the message along, which must then be interpreted by the individual errant and fallible human.
GD: . . . this is the historic position of the the Church, . . .
GB: Of the apostate church, there, fixed it for you.
GD: the burden of proof is on you.
GB: The Bible makes no claim of inerrancy or infallibility for itself, so why do you believe it? Or why should I? Especially since I have clearly shown the involvement of errant and fallible humans in its coming forth.
GD: I can support my position (Psalm 19 a single example). . .
GB: Since Psalms was written many centuries prior to the assembly of the Bible from the collection of books, it canNOT be speaking about it. Also notice that it says “law of the Lord is perfect” and NOT “the Bible is perfect”.
GD: . . . you have yet to attempt to support yours.
GB: I have provide plain, clear and irrefutable evidence of faults with the text.
I will also say that for the Bible to be claimed to be inerrant and infallible, the decision to do so must be inerrant and infallible.
So what inerrant and infallible standard was the basis for the inerrant and infallible decision to claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible?
And were the errant and fallible humans involved in the process? If so, how can we know that the whole process wasn’t errant and fallible?
And which of the many versions of the Bible are we talking about? The Catholic? The Protestant? The Orthodox? Or one of the others?
GB,
You have provided plain, clear, and irrefutable evidence that you consider the bible to be in error, nothing more. You have not proved that the bible is in error or that the bible was in error in the original autograph.
You do ask a good question about what version of the Bible is inerrant. I do not believe that inerrantcy can be attributed to anything except that original autographs.
You can hem and haw all you want, Psalm 19 is only as single example you can see others in the New Testament as (1 Peter 1:24, 25 as a single example). Please provide me with your first passage from the Bible where it claims to be in error.
gd: . . .that the bible was in error in the original autograph.
. . . do not believe that inerrantcy can be attributed to anything except that original autographs.
GB: The problem you have is that we don’t have a SINGLE autograph of a SINGLE book of the Bible.
So even if I agreed with your definition of inerrancy, (which I don’t) you still can’t claim that our current Bible is inerrant or infallible.
Bart D. Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” makes a compelling argument that what we currently have has been modified by unauthorized scribes. (There is that human element again).
Also 1 Peter 1:24, 25 would still be valid if the entire Bible was lost to mankind.
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
The “word of the Lord” is what God has spoken and is independent of what portion of it may or may not have been recorded in human language.
Also Peter clearly indicates that the “word of the Lord” “is the word which by the gospel is PREACHED” not written.
John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
1) These are the words of the Apostle and prophet John, not the word of the Lord.
And, Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
2) All of what Jesus did and said is NOT recorded in the Bible. Does that mean that those words won’t endure for ever?
I think not!
GB,
I know that we do not have the autographs, I am not sure what your point is? What exactly does the absence of an autograph prove or disprove? It doesn’t change that all Scripture is breathed out by God does it?
Bart Ehrman’s case is far from compelling (He laughs at the Book of Mormon by the way) primarily because he overstates his case and has been refuted by a number of scholars, besides you are now conflating inerrant with transmission issues. Are there transmission issues, yes. Are there passages that we don’t fully understand, yes. Does this change the bible claim to be inerrant, no.
Please provide where the bible claims to be in error.
Actually I think it is obvious that the “God breathed” is a result of translating said verse in the most inerrantist friendly way possible.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Actually the Greek word is “theopneustos”.
“Theo” meaning God and “pneustos” a variant of the word “pneuma” or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.
The word breathed in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word “emphusaO” literally meaning ‘He-IN-INFLATES’.
If you look at 2 Tim 3:16 in different English versions of the Bible you find;
American Standard Version = “inspired of God”
Darby Translation = “divinely inspired”
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition = “inspired of God”
Holman Christian Standard Bible = “inspired by God”
King James Version = “inspiration of God”
New American Standard Bible = “inspired by God”
New Century Version = “inspired by God”
New King James Version = “inspiration of God”
New Living Translation = “inspired by God”
Wycliffe New Testament = “inspired of God”
Contemporary English Version = “God’s Word”
21st Century King James Version = “inspiration of God”
New World Translation = “inspired of God”
Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?
The Bible is just a collection of books and makes NO CLAIMS about itself because it is unaware of itself.
If you care to read…here are a few examples of contradictions: I Chron. 21:5 and 2 Samuel 24:9; 2 Sam. 10:8 and 1 Chron. 19:18; 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9; Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and 2 Chron. 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26.
Some of these are so plain that even defenders of Biblical inerrancy must at least admit the likelihood of copyist errors says Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, in their writings of “When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties”, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p. 199, comparing 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9 where Jehoiachin’s age when he began to reign is given as 18 and 8 years, respectively).
GB,
Did I deny transmission errors? No I did not. Did I deny difficult passages? No I did not. They are irrelevant to the matter at hand, the infallible and inerrant original revelation of God in its first written form. Because you deny the authority of the Bible I understand perfectly why you must deny inerrancy.
In a way it is rather humorously irrelevant to claim inerrancy for the autographs when they don’t exist.
GB,
Certainly from your perspective I understand why it is irrelevant.
Among other things to deny the infallibility is to transfer the authority of the revelations of the Bible from the source, God, to the recipient, man.
GD: Did I deny transmission errors? No I did not. Did I deny difficult passages? No I did not.
GB: So now you have changed the argument from the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible to the autographs. How convenient that we don’t have them to test if the errors exposed so far are only transmission errors or errors in the autographs.
GD: They are irrelevant to the matter at hand, the infallible and inerrant original revelation of God in its first written form.
GB: They may be irrelevant, but without the autographs we can not know that. How very convenient.
GD: Because you deny the authority of the Bible I understand perfectly why you must deny inerrancy.
GB: I don’t deny that the Bible is scripture, I just don’t delude myself into believing something about it that is not claimed by God or the book itself or any of its authors.
GD: Certainly from your perspective I understand why it is irrelevant.
GB: It is nice to know that you can see it from my perspective.
GD: Among other things to deny the infallibility is to transfer the authority of the revelations of the Bible from the source, God, to the recipient, man.
GB: Where did Paul get the gospel he preached? From the Bible? No! The Bible didn’t exist at the time, and neither did most of the books of the New Testament.
He received it by revelation from God. That is the true source of truth. It is true that books of scripture can help us in receiving that revelation for ourselves, but they are but aids, not the source itself.
The scriptures were written by errant/fallible men. And for the most part the books/epistles they wrote they claimed as their own. Not a single one of them claimed inerrancy/infallibility for themselves or for what they wrote.
And that is exactly why the foundation of the church was Apostles and prophets, who by definition are authorized to receive revelation for the guidance of the Church and its membership as a whole.
Does being authorized make them inerrant/infallible? No!! it doesn’t. But it does mean that God has sufficient trust in them to authorize them in the first place.
If He trusts them, can we?
GB,
I am not changing the argument, I asked a simple question “show me where the doctrine of the “errant” and “fallible” word of God is taught in the Bible.” Biblical inerrancy has historically been attributed to the original autographs. This is not a Protestant invention but can be seen from the earliest writings of the Church.
You keep claiming that the Scriptures do not claim to be inerrant. You have looked a various translations of 2 Tim 3:16 all of them agree that all scripture is inspired, what is your point except to take authority away from the objective Word of God and replace it with your own subjectivity. I understand you need a bible riddled with errors but this goes against the claims of the Bible itself (Ps 12:6,Ps 18:30,119:140,Prov 30:5,Ps 19:8)
I agree that the “foundation of the church was Apostles and prophets, who by definition are authorized to receive revelation for the guidance of the Church and its membership as a whole.” They left an infallible record.
I recently stumbled across this link and recalled our conversation here and thought you might find this of interest.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/religion/spurious.htm
I have not read the entire site but from a quick glance there is nothing there that is not in my copy of the NASB95 or ESV bible footnotes. Are the footnotes in yours?