On inerrancy - and how to understand it

[B.H.]

KLP,

In your opinion how could someone conclusively prove the epistle Agricola mentioned was a forgery?

I see her points and yet you have good counterpoints. Is there actually an answer?

[KLP]

KLP,

In your opinion how could someone conclusively prove the epistle Agricola mentioned was a forgery?

I see her points and yet you have good counterpoints. Is there actually an answer?

That is the point BH (begging the question almost)...the referenced author declared the matter to be resolved to such an extent it is now simply "fact" and used that as a premise in the article. I simple questioned the premise being declared "a fact" as being any different from the POV he is complaining about, namely people that insist something is inerrant. The author is declaring his premise as "inerrant" fact and it must be so for his case to hold enough water even for a sprinkling.

[ena]

I guess I can see how it might make things easier to just stop believing in the Bible as God's Word. I just never found the arguments compelling, they always seemed to convenient and self-serving. Paul didn't write 1 Tim...wham, there...it is true because the guy decides to say it is true. Not sure how any of that differs from the POV he is complaining about. BTW, is "inerancy" (sic) meant to be a comment?

A Bible with no errors is a lie. That is what inerrant means.

1. The Greek texts that the New Testament is translated from do not say the same thing. Which one is inerrant?
2. We only have copies not originals.
3. You can see human errors in the text.
4. There was not always quality control on copyists. The most common mistake is spelling.
5. Humans wrote the Bible not God.
6. The Spirit of God does not make mistakes. Inspired means in spirit. You can see the roots.
7. A translation may contain errors. It is not provably inspired.
8. A Bible without errors is only important if you are going to turn it into God's Little Rule Book.
Otherwise it is not.

Timothy is a disputed text. There are 6 disputed texts supposedly written by Paul. You would not learn this in the CoC. Is a woman saved by child bearing? If you look into the world you will see both saved and unsaved bearing children. It is a Biological function. 1 Tim 2:15.

[ena]

The following link compares Codex Sinaiticus with the King James. Both are translated in English. Mark 16:9-20 is missing, there are changes to the lord's prayer, and the woman caught in adultery is missing. Codex Sinaiticus is our oldest complete new testament. About 350 CE. The Greek translated Old Testament is partially destroyed but we have good Hebrew texts. The King James came from later documents. This shows you the stuff scholars have to look at. The King James comes from later copies. More forgeries. I am not trying to trash the Bible. It has been blown out of proportion with reality. This link is great.

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

[KLP]

...Timothy is a disputed text. There are 6 disputed texts supposedly written by Paul. ....

Try to focus and stay on topic. The question is not if it is disputed...the entire Bible is "disputed" by someone or at some point. The referenced article is asserting, assuming, and claiming there is no dispute possible and that it is fact to be not written in any way by Paul. I dispute that anyone could know that as "FACT" based in part on your bullet list. But yes, they can believe that and make an argument, but to call it beyond dispute and fact is overstatement and shows a bias or a willingness to make unsupportable assertions in the cause of proving something else in unsupportable. So folks question the Bible and they have basis...good for them. But IMO the author ventures into to doing exactly what is being complained about...having to claim something as fact when it is at best a matter or belief.

This is from the actual article under consideration.

But, to get back to I Timothy, it does begin with “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy my true son in the faith” (NIV).

But Paul didn’t write it. Period.

[agricola]

There are numerous letters in the NT (the whole of it between Acts and Revelation is letters). Many of these letters are or are traditionally assumed to be, by Paul.
What scholars are saying is:

Here is this set of letters which are said to be 'by Paul'. Within that set are several which are clearly written by one author, given the language and style and the concerns of the letters, and these letters have been identified as 'by Paul'. Let us agree (everyone agrees) that these letters are BY PAUL absolutely.

IF THESE ARE DEFINITELY BY PAUL, then the person who wrote I Timothy is somebody else. The language and style is not similar. The concerns of the letters are not only not the same concerns, in some places they are CONTRADICTORY to the opinions stated in the other set of letters which are definitely 'by Paul'.

Therefore, I Timothy was not written by Paul. Somebody else wrote it, using Paul's name, probably to gain a level of authority the author could not claim personally. We call that kind of thing 'forgery'.

[KLP]

There are numerous letters in the NT (the whole of it between Acts and Revelation is letters). Many of these letters are or are traditionally assumed to be, by Paul.
What scholars are saying is:

Here is this set of letters which are said to be 'by Paul'. Within that set are several which are clearly written by one author, given the language and style and the concerns of the letters, and these letters have been identified as 'by Paul'. Let us agree (everyone agrees) that these letters are BY PAUL absolutely.

IF THESE ARE DEFINITELY BY PAUL, then the person who wrote I Timothy is somebody else. The language and style is not similar. The concerns of the letters are not only not the same concerns, in some places they are CONTRADICTORY to the opinions stated in the other set of letters which are definitely 'by Paul'.

Therefore, I Timothy was not written by Paul. Somebody else wrote it, using Paul's name, probably to gain a level of authority the author could not claim personally. We call that kind of thing 'forgery'.

Yes, I know that is what you and others want and insist on calling it, just as you discount what Jesus said (or was recorded as saying) and that you think there is no prophecy fulfilled by Jesus and that Jews today, Jewish normative thinking, and Jews who you may have heard about in the past think this or that. And good for you and them and everyone. That is not the same as "fact" and certainly not the same as indisputable proved knowledge. It is OK if you want to believe that, just spare the overstatement of claiming that it is the same as any other knowable fact. It is like saying anyone has measured the age of the Universe just like the size of a rock is measured. It is not an equivalent use of the word. So no...it is not "fact" that Paul did or didn't write an epistle with his name on it...it is a matter of faith and choice. You have chosen to not believe. That is your choice. Stop insisting it is some how proved science when it is clearly a matter of choice and faith on yours and everyone's part. To me making such overstatement just undermines the actual language skills that you claim to have or are putting to use.

So on a topic of inerrancy it would seem one might stop short of claiming something as "fact" when by definition it is not knowable.

[agricola]

klp - I am not saying this because I'm Jewish. I'm saying this because I actually read stuff about literary analysis. Plenty of quite ordinary, normal Christian believers contribute to literary analyses and are aware of the NT's origins and the various issues between who is SAID to have written parts, and which writings are clearly not by the same person.

You know - things like 'Luke and Acts were probably written by the same person' because hey, Luke and Acts are both in quite good Greek, and have the same general literary style, and so forth. It that is non-controversial, then why quibble at EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF ANALYSIS when it says 'and 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul' for the same reasons?

[ena]

klp - I am not saying this because I'm Jewish. I'm saying this because I actually read stuff about literary analysis. Plenty of quite ordinary, normal Christian believers contribute to literary analyses and are aware of the NT's origins and the various issues between who is SAID to have written parts, and which writings are clearly not by the same person.

You know - things like 'Luke and Acts were probably written by the same person' because hey, Luke and Acts are both in quite good Greek, and have the same general literary style, and so forth. It that is non-controversial, then why quibble at EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF ANALYSIS when it says 'and 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul' for the same reasons?

I have been aware of Textual Critical Analysis for years. It is a technique of using various manuscripts to deduce what the author originally wrote. The goal is a worthy one. Bart Ehrman talks about Historical Analysis. He reads Greek fluently and is key in the world of Bible Archeology. He has read the early church fathers in Greek. He has read the Gnostic texts in Greek. My goal is not to destroy your faith but to be more more accurate in what you believe. You can be a prisoner of your beliefs. That once happened to me. It is a sunnier day with God than with the CoC. You can leave the CoC but getting it to leave you is difficult. In my case I was lied to. Not with intent but with ignorance. I have found Bart to tell the truth and state facts when others fall very short of that. God has not made it possible for me to go to Chapel Hill, NC and take his Baby Bible Course. I can work with transliterated Greek and Hebrew to locate words and definitions and have done so since I was a teen. This comes in handy. It does not give duration of action which is part of Greek verb forms. There is always more to learn. Transliteration uses our alphabet to simulate Greek and Hebrew words which have their own separate alphabets. Many tools use them. Here is an example. Let's look at "psalmos". The scriptures that use this word used are commonly used against instrumental music when tied to the plucking of strings. Maybe you can only have a harp.

http://biblehub.com/greek/5568.htm

This link explains about the disputed texts of Paul. It worth hearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDfYA21lDic

[agricola]

I think, basically, there are religious groups that set out a doctrinal position, and demand that 'facts' be either twisted to support their position, or that 'facts' be dismissed and ignored if they don't support that doctrinal position. These people - these groups - put their own particular understanding of scripture and doctrine above factual accuracy.

Others say, if facts are discovered which appear to oppose a doctrinal position, they will examine how that doctrine was developed, and the scriptural support for it, and see if maybe they didn't understand it properly. These say - truth can't be 'wrong', so if we think our doctrine is right but evidence challenges that opinion, then we need to figure out why and deal.

"It is the duty of philosophy to destroy the illusions which had their origin in misconceptions, whatever darling hopes and valued expectations may be ruined by its explanations." - Immanuel Kant

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant. - H.L. Mencken

For with the masses who are people of the Torah [Jewish Bible], that which is beloved to them and tasty to their folly is that they should place Torah and rational thinking as two opposite extremes, and will derive everything impossible as distinct from that which is reasonable, and they say that it is a miracle, and they flee from something being in accordance with natural law, whether something recounted from past events, with something that is in the present, or with something which is said to happen in the future. But we shall endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, leading events according to the natural order wherever possible; only with something that is clarified to be a miracle and cannot be otherwise explained at all will we say that it is a miracle. - Maimonides, Letter Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead, quoted in Slifkin, p. 109-110

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote about non-Christian scholars and natural philosophers that:
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. - Augustine, On the Literal Meaning of Scripture, 1.19

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes