Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

Oddly, I don't think I've heard a single critic of Christianity wonder why Jesus gave us nothing in writing. It seems to me a legitimate question. Why DIDN'T Jesus write anything down, and what would he think of later evangelists who wrote stuff down FOR him?

Lee - I know you and I are GREAT writers, but Jesus outranks us and gets transcriptionists.

When we're ready for biographers, we could do worse than the ones Jesus picked.

I think the eyewitness accounts give a stronger case for the inerrancy of the Gospels, especially given the fact that there are 4 of them. But, of course, you don't believe that.

Maybe it depends on how you define inerrancy. Brent, step in here with a proper definition when ready.

That there are contradictions between the Gospels is a given among most Bible scholars. For example, did Jesus die before Passover (John's Gospel) or on/after (the other three)? So how serious does a contradiction have to be before it threatens the inerrancy status of the Bible?

More serious than any you've found, Lee, and you spend your whole life muckraking.

I would say that pretty much renders the idea of inerrancy completely meaningless, then. What does the word mean to you, Robert?

Copying errors, minor eyewitness discrepancies, historical things out of whack - these are the things you'd expect in a tome of this magnitude. I'd be worried if they WEREN'T in evidence - then I'd roll out the conspiracy theories.

Given that John's theology matches a pre-Passover crucifixion, I'd guess that it's the other three gospels that contain "copying errors."

Anyway, why DIDN'T Jesus just give it to us straight? Did he die before he had a chance?

Biblical Innerrancy

1. It pertains to what is affirmed, NOT, what is reported. Namely, if the Bible says "there is no god (Ps 14:1), this obviously is a false proposition, but in context, the Bible doesn't affirm this proposition--it says "the fool says in his heart: 'there is no god.'

2. Biblical inerrancy takes into account the historical-cultural context wherein it was written. Hence, if the Bible writers thought that Hades was a physical location underneath the earth, that doesn't necessitate that they were wrong, since that was the Hellenistic Jewish understanding at the time Peter wrote his epistles. That the location is still elsewhere (not physical but in another spiritual dimension) is equally plausible, since the writers were writing in the their specific time frame. Hence, the authors of the OT used words lofty words to describe God's transcendence. God isn't really sitting way high up in outer space, obviously we know that know, but in the context the writers wrote it was true, because that was their way of describing their phenomenon of God's holy otherworldiness.

3. The Bible's assertions are true inasmuch as they are properly judged in light of the perlocutions of the original authors. Hence, If Chronicles reports 10,000 men, and Kings reports 9,764 men...both are equally right given you understand the purpose of the Chronicler summarizing the King narrative accounts for a post-exile generation, etc. etc. If I tell the girl I want to impress that 60,000 dollars (rounding up to an even number) but I tell the IRS on my taxes that I make 58,439 dollars (to be precise and accurate), there is no contradiction, both are equally true.

4. Narrative accounts and historical events were NOT written in 21st century scientific technical language--they were written in the cultural contextual understanding of that time in phenomenological language. In plain words, the writer reports things AS THEY APPEAR TO THEIR EYE. So to the author of Joshua, the sun appeared to actually stand still, yes. This does not mean that the earth stopped rotating necessarily, nor does it mean it's in invalid account--let's not get into this one again, Lee ;)

5. The doctrine of inerrancy applies to only the original manuscripts. This is not a cop out doctrine, it's bold a robust. Thanks to textual criticism, we have winnowed out what are false additions and scribal errors through the scholastic ages, and come to a very very close and accurate understanding of what the original autographs said: OT Masoretic approx 96%, Koine Greek NT aprox 99%. Mild discrepancies have more to do with which pronoun was used--not doctrine. Textual criticism lets us Christians boldly proclaim we are not afraid of scrutiny. The Word itself stands strong. Unlike various other ancient Greek documents which we have little to no copies of--Homer, Aristotle, etc.--we literally have thousands of copies of the NT. It's unparallelled in the ancient world as far as how many people it reached.

"Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, the will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences." (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 157).

Also, are you so base to assume that the lack of actual written work by a teacher, guru, leader, etc is in any way negative historically, or demonstrably takes credence away from a historical figure?

Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) did not write one word.

There you go, Lee, we don't send this kid for theology training for nothing!

Thanks, Brent.

Would you please help me understand the stance of inerrancy in light of the example I listed above ... the timing of the death of Jesus? Again, John says it's before Passover, and builds his theology around that. The others say it's on or after Passover, and even have Jesus eating the Passover meal.

This is a great example if you can use it to drill into my head exactly what (if anything) is being said when the claim of inerrancy is made.

Is the purpose of the Bible to easily and indisputably bring every single person on this planet running to Jesus because there is no room left for doubt??? Many Christians attempt to claim this. But the Bible doesn't.

Many Muslims have asked my why Jesus didn't write his story himself. That's a fair question. The answer: it wasn't necessary.

The Bible is doing it's job perfectly. Pulling some...pushing away others. Some assumed contradictions draw Christians to investigate and study ----- and others are just simply annoyed and easily driven away. The heart plays a part.

Great post Brent. If only more people would realize the Bible is not a Chinese VCR manual for the electronically impaired.

One of the most enlightening verses in the Bible is:

John 19:19
19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” 20 Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek.

Why in 3 languages?

Muslims say if it was God it should only be in one language...so do many atheists. But the Bible itself says God's word is meant to be translated for the whole world.

I have even heard that what was written on the cross was a contradiction. But it is only a contradiction if you don't READ THE WHOLE BIBLE. The Bible almost always explains itself perfectly.
But short sighted morons who only read the Bible one verse at a time (and then argue) are doomed to ignorance.

Lee question:
"Would you please help me understand the stance of inerrancy in light of the example I listed above ... the timing of the death of Jesus? Again, John says it's before Passover, and builds his theology around that."

Here's an idea Lee - why don't you do a little smidgen of research and TELL US why that verse is possibly NOT a contradiction. Do you ever bother to look? Or do you just prefer to run around crying out "CONTRADICTION!".

Rod, every knowledgeable Bible scholar that I research recognizes it as a contradiction. They just don't get their panties in a bunch about it. My question to Brent (who is surely aware of this contradiction) is, why not? How do these scholars define inerrancy so that it remains intact? I'm trying to understand the scholarly stance.

You aren't trying to UNDERSTAND anything Lee. Please stop using that word.

Are you so clueless that you don't see how emotional and dishonest you are? Your last statement shows where you are at with your ability to research:

Lee embarrassing himself: "every knowledgeable Bible scholar that I research recognizes it as a contradiction."


First you said you RESEARCH. (that's comical.)
Second you said EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE...as if that means something to anyone but YOU.

That type of assumptions might work in evolutionary thinking and liberal chat groups. But you should know better than to try it on US.

I like you buddy - but boy are you THICK. :c)

Now go do 10 minutes of research and come back and tell us some possible alternatives to YOUR KNOWLEDGEABLE BIBLE SCHOLARS about the timing of Jesus death.

I've already done this. There are possible answers. You won't like them of course. But that's YOUR PROBLEM>

Rod, you need to grow up. Yes, I do research. I have two shelves of Johannine literature, from the most noted Johannine scholars of today and yesterday, collected and studied as a prerequisite to publishing my own book about the Gospel of John.

GREAT! Then answer my question.

The answer is, EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE SCHOLAR RECOGNIZES THE CONTRADICTION. I'm sorry you don't like the answer.

Rod, I am fully aware of your approach to inerrancy. It is to wiggle any remotely possible way of interpreting scripture so that it remains intact, and then saying "see? no contradiction there!" That just doesn't cut it with scholars. My question is not to you, because I know you won't answer it, but to Brent.

Maybe Brent will come back and say "believers in inerrancy think Johannine scholars are incorrect in how they read this Gospel," but at least I'll know what the stance is.

Lee,

See criterion number 3. John wrote his gospel to affirm many truths to a different school of audience at a different time. That John's illocutionary force revolves around the Son of God who is the suffering servant, the Lamb of God is made plain and apparent. Your a Johainne scholar, Lee, you understand The Beloved Apostle wrote with different perlocutions (purposes) than did Luke the Doctor. This much is plain. That John emphasizes Jesus dead as the Passover lambs were to be slain is only obvious, for that is his purpose. Moreover, it's important to note that Shabbat does not always means Saturday, indeed, it also is used of Holy Days (such as Passover) even if it didn't fall on a Saturday. So although there certainly are ways to reconcile this apparent contradiction, we need not presuppose error—certainly St. Mark in reading John's account years later (hypothetically speaking) would not have done so. Even if we utilize our 21st century methods of historical criticism, we can see each author at work, divinely guided by the Spirit for specific intent. It's actually quite marvelous. Nonetheless, to a skeptic, I sound like a blabbering idiot. I understand we disagree, Lee, I just pray you understand that my view is just as credible and tenable as yours, even if we think each other obviously wrong. I do pray for you that you would come to the Word like a child and accept inerrancy, maybe someday.

Brent wrote: "Biblical Innerrancy

1. It pertains to what is affirmed, NOT, what is reported. Namely, if the Bible says "there is no god (Ps 14:1), this obviously is a false proposition, but in context, the Bibl..."

An excellent summary of inerrancy, Brent. I appreciate the detail.

Thank you very much, Brent. I agree with you 100%. Meaning transcends historical detail, there is no "error" in presenting Jesus as the Lamb of God by relating his death to the sacrifice of the lambs in the Temple, and I am so glad you are able to see the beauty in John's Gospel. It is a remarkable document. Maybe I CAN someday accept inerrancy as I learn more about what it really means.

You do NOT agree with Brent Lee. Why do you do that? You say "100%"???
WHat you really mean is about 5%. And with the rest you like to pretend you are scholarly. Sorry Lee - you don't fool some of us.


Brent and I basically said the same thing. I just gave a very short version - that cuts through all your crap.

Lee comment: " Maybe I CAN someday accept inerrancy as I learn more about what it really means."

Seriously? What a bunch of garbage Lee. Unless of course you were joking. That would actually make sense.

Ask Brent if you and he said the same thing. If he was merely blowing smoke to hide a contradiction, then you're right, I don't agree with him.

If "inerrancy" means one book cannot say Jesus died before the passover meal and another say he died after the passover, then of course I cannot believe in inerrancy. Because it's as clear as the nose on your face.

Yes Brent and I said the same thing:

Brent quote: " So although there certainly are ways to reconcile this apparent contradiction, we need not presuppose error"

I just wanted you to learn how to properly research another perspective than your own. You still don't seem capable of this Lee.

Lee, Did you ever get answer to your question?

Nah, we got off track as usual. Got an answer for me, Hawk?

Lee, if its to answer the question of inerrancy, then I would say all true and without error, in the original manuscripts. And if its to answer the question why didn't Jesus write anything down, he did, he wrote in the sand. :) I have read most of the posts, and some of the answers are just to long winded. And to go down rabbit trails and start capitalizing our words or making people feel as if their answers are moronic or stupid doesn't help either. Lee, do you think people declare the bible guilty, before its declared innocent? I think the bible can be trusted in all that it says. Even in the difficult parts. That is my simple answer for today.

guilty before innocent? I think discerning readers recognize discrepancies in the Bible, some serious and some not so serious, but that only implies "guilty" if you try to make the Bible out to be something other than what it is.

It seems to me that you contradict yourself a little, saying first that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts (implying that it's not without error today) and then saying it can be trusted in all that it says.

I wonder how "original" you mean? Does the long ending to Mark count? Does the final chapter of John count? Neither are likely to be "original." You alluded to Jesus writing in the sand, but that story is definitely not original to John's Gospel. Does it count? Would you accept that perhaps that particular story didn't happen, because it wasn't anything that "John" wrote?

I think we need to recognize these as growing, evolving documents. It makes for very complex issues if we imagine that somehow our Bibles got off-track and started reporting falsities at one point. But to imagine that God led the progress of the Bible up through today leaves us with hoards of obvious contradictions to explain.

By far, the simplest solution is to ignore the doctrine of inerrancy. It really is a bizarre and confusing doctrine when you think about it.

Lee - not to mention that's it's very covenient for scurrilous sowers of discord to have the Bible regarded as an error-filled mess.

Only if you think contradictory opinions in the bible form an "error filled mess." Another reason to quit preaching inerrancy...we don't want anybody who can read straight thinking the Bible is an error-filled mess.

Lee = What's between inerrant and an error-filled mess?

Ha ... you trapped me, since inerrant literally means free from error. But most people think of "inerrant" as everywhere historically true when it comes to the Bible.

If John says Jesus died before Passover and the others say he died on/after Passover, is that an error? No. As Brent pointed out, John's story reads precisely as he meant it, John is concerned about meaning not historical facts, so he made no error. But does it destroy many definitions of inerrant? Yes. It doesn't destroy Brent's, but it does Rod's.

So the Bible is between "everywhere factually true" and "a mess filled with author errors."

As authors, divinely inspired by the spirit, utilized their own creative hermeneutical approaches and wrote different gospels for different purposes, yes, there are apparent contradictions, but no overt errors: you'll recall my lengthy post on biblical inerrancy and what that means.

We're not changing definitions here, merely recognizing the proper genres and their literary function. John's theology from above is reflects Jesus in a different light than Luke's theology from below. They are both right when understood with proper illumination.

Wow! I agree with both Lee and Brent - I must really be sick, better go see a doctor.

I agree to with both of them as well. I would like to add, that I think we cannot ignore inerrancy Lee because its bizarre or confusing. This type of stuff leads me into asking more questions in order to see how far the rabbit hole goes, if you know what I mean. Even if we all don't agree, can we agree that the bible stands alone in its content, its accuracy, and its transmission?

Why can't we ignore inerrancy? Why is it important? I think it's a concept not worth bothering with.

What do you mean by "stands alone?" Are you comparing it to other holy books? Other ancient writings?

I guess by your questions, you don't agree with me? I would really like to know more of what you believe? Why do you think inerrancy be ignored? Do you think that its not important? If we ignore the Doctrine of Inerrancy what stops us from ignoring the Doctrine of Salvation or the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ, just because its confusing or bizarre. I believe the bible stands a lone because of its authorship, period of time that it was written in and its main theme that runs right from Genesis to Revelation, the person of Jesus Christ.

From a practical standpoint, Biblical inerrancy and infallibility provides a standard I need to try to live up to. Naturally, I fail, and usually miserably, but that's because of my human weakness, not because I mentally discarded the standards. When I wrote my book, CREATION STRIKES BACK, I constantly prayed that, while stretching the limit, I didn't exceed God's standards for his Word. Brent would disagree on that, but God waved no red flags at me so, as best I can figure, all my current living efforts are at least an attempt to stay within God's parameters. How do you know when you're outside the line, Lee, if you have no divine measuring stick?

Robert wrote: "How do you know when you're outside the line, Lee, if you have no divine measuring stick?."

Outside what line, Robert? I can't seem to get across that my understanding of Jesus' message is contrary to drawing lines. I do think people engage in hurtful actions (classify them as sins if you wish) but the focus is not to judge but to encourage the fruits of the Spirit.

Hawk, I am a liberal Christian. I don't think of the Bible as infallible or even in all places very Godly. It is the diary of a nation growing up and learning about God.

I cannot think of anything good about a doctrine of inerrancy. It sends the wrong message.

Lee - that's right, I forgot your lines are all arbitrary and based on the results of a daily public opinion poll.

Lee, I am a Christian. I have been for almost 45 years. And within the last 10 years lets say, I have come to realize that the bible speaks the truth in all its parts. I believe the bible not to be merely a human book, written by man over a period of 1800 years but also divinely inspired. I believe it to be authoritative and sufficient for life. As I said before, the bible in its original manuscripts were inerrant, but since we don't have originals error has crept in. But with the amount of material (copies) that exists today we can reconstruct what the originals said. Btw, This is a fantastic study. I find the more people who find errors or mistakes in the bible the little they know about the bible. Lee can I give you some advice, don't give up searching the scriptures and don't stop asking questions and losing the wonder of knowing God himself.

Hawk wrote: "Lee, I am a Christian. I have been for almost 45 years. And within the last 10 years lets say, I have come to realize that the bible speaks the truth in all its parts.

Interesting, Hawk. In the last 20 or so, I have discovered just the opposite. Certainly, anyone who is unaware of contradictions and errors in the Bible knows little about it. ;)

I am definitely continuing to learn and encourage you to do the same. Hope it doesn't offend you if I say it sounds like you've gotten yourself stuck inside the box.

Lee, I don't know if you have thought of this but do you think error comes from Gods revelation or the misinterpretations of man?