On inerrancy - and how to understand it

[KLP]

And so the point remains no matter how much Agri and others want to really really really insist on some other "fact" that is without dispute. No matter how much you want to believe something that cannot be known or proved does not make that thing known or proved...in the absolute sense a thing is known. And when one assumes a doctrinal or other POV that a text is not what it claims then all sorts of things follow. It is the beginning starting point and POV that drives the "conclusion". So all the pointing of the fault of others who have one POV is really driven by others with a different POV. It is all POV, choice, and faith.

Essentially the author and others are insisting that they are inerrant in claiming that they know who did or didn't write some part of the Bible. It is this absolute mindset that is faulting another absolute mindset...pot and kettle IMO.

Agri you justify your POV and beliefs, great, good for you. You may even be absolutely correct, but because it is beyond the realm of "proof" then it cannot be "fact" and "beyond dispute". It really is not a difficult language concept to grasp, but yes it can be hard to admit and accept it seems. People just have this need to overstate and demand that their POV is the "real one" and "factual" and "beyond dispute"...and then they do things like stack up votes and books that confirm their own bias. But the thing remains unknowable...no amount of voting and agreement counting will ever change that...and that seems to really irk people who have a hard time accepting they are living by choice and faith.

[zeek]

.

[KLP]

Before Mt. Everest was discovered, what was the highest mountain on earth?

It is beyond dispute that Mt Hunkajunka was the highest elevation at over 73,000ft. There is simply no disputing this. Therefore it is fact. Of course it has eroded now and we don't have it around to actually see or know, but it is beyond dispute.

[ena]

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.

Generally agree but I prefer the truth where ever it leads. Most Christians do not know anything about how their Bible was made or how the canon was formed. Who chose the books out of many that did not make the cut. Even the ones that did were even debated in ancient times. The problem is that much of Church History is buried in Greek. The Church Fathers have names that most would recognize: Clement, Papias, and Eusubius to mention a few. They also wrote in Greek and their writings are becoming available in English. There is some duplication of names. Where this occurs usually the city they are from included. I am learning about this stuff and do not know all of it. I do not read Greek. Bible Greek is ancient it is not the modern language. The Old Testament language is Hebrew and the books are in better shape in-spite of being much older. Quality control is better in my view at this time. Other languages that scholars encounter come in contact are Coptic an Egyptian language, Aramaic which Jesus an his apostles spoke and Syriac which and Aramaic base. Most of the copies that we have came from Egypt. Believe it or not Egypt was once a hot bed of Christianity. I have been privileged to get Smithsonian Channel with Documentaries about this. The guy I enjoy is Dr. Jeff Rose. He like Dr.Bart Ehrman is not an inerrantist because he is well aware discrepancies that these ancient manuscripts have. Bart used to be an inerrantist but as he learned the Bible in detail he started to see things did not fir together. This is not easy and most in the Church do not know. You will have a laugh at this one. He got the wrong prophet. That is a fact.

Matt 27:9 NASB Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;

[ena]

Essentially the author and others are insisting that they are inerrant in claiming that they know who did or didn't write some part of the Bible. It is this absolute mindset that is faulting another absolute mindset...pot and kettle IMO.

You want a black and white world. It isn't. There is a multude of shades of grey. I had trouble with this for many years. The Denominations are not evil but an artifact of Christian History. Most of them know their own history. Does the CoC? Oh we were there on the day of Penticost! Where is your ancient copy of the Greek Bible? The Catholic Church has one. The Greek Orthodox Church had one and many others. In fact when you go back into history Constantine rolled Christianity into one by 325 AD you could argue a few years earlier. The one true Church is Catholic or split of it.
The Theological World is larger than you wrap your brain around.

I do not care whether you agree or disagree. You don't seem to be able disagree and move on.
Look back at the post I gave Agricola. Did Jeremiah say that? The author of Matthew made an error. I don't call him a liar because he sometimes comes though brilliantly. He is error prone because much his stuff came from memory. He made 6 errors in his genealogy. He did not have a pocket Old Testament. It is the nature of the age he lived in.

[ena]

What was the age like. There was no paper. Paper like many things was invented in China. There was papyrus. It is a reed with sticky pith. You lay it crosswise and pound it with mallet. The sticky pith glues it together. When you see this it will often see this in fragments. This is about as close as you get to paper. Next is vellum. Vellum is animal skins with the hair removed. The skin is stretched and dried. Most animals have skin that are much thinner that cowhide. They do use calf. This is not leather.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellum

Most of the 4th century copies we have are vellum. That is between 300 CE and 399 CE. Was not the Bible written in the 1st century. The problem is that the scriptures were a mess. The first our canon of 27 books shows up is around 367 CE in a Bishops letter. There was not a lot of agreement on what was scripture or not. The Gnostics thought they had the secret. The word comes from the Greek "gnosis" meaning secret knowlege. This link is good. ctrl + makes it larger.

http://www.theopedia.com/gnosticism

Copies were made meticulously by hand. Many have corrections for sections that were missed. A Church may have only one copy.

[ena]

Joram's son, grandson, and great grandson were left out of Matthews Genealogy of Jesus. You can see it in 1st Chronicles. Spelling differences are caused the Hebrew and Greek alphabets which are different. Extra names are so you can see it dovetail. The author of Matthew tells you it is the genealogy of Jesus. It Is not. His count is wrong.

Matt 1:8-9 KJV
8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

1 Chronicles !!-13 KJV

11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son,

12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son,

13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son,

Compared with 1 Chronicles 3:11, 12
1 Chron -----Matt

Joram--------Joram
Ahaziah------XXXXX Missing
Joash---------XXXXX Missing
Amaziah-----XXXXX Missing
Azariah------Ozias
Jotham------Joatham
Ahaz----------Achaz

This is known to scholars who think these may be cursed lines. Bart mentions it in "Interrupting Jesus". He talks about the Greek reasons that 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus could be forgeries. I suspect they were written after Paul was dead. Paul was beheaded under Nero. Nero died in 68 AD. He was well aware that what he was doing was dangerous. He death was mentioned in Foxes Book of Martyrs chapter 1. One more name is missing but this was laborious enough.

[agricola]

The genealogical lists are included for theological (sorry, doctrinal) reasons: to show that Jesus was a viable candidate for messiah, as a lineal descendant of David. The lists are -at best - ''apocryphal". There are two lists, they don't agree with each other, at least one (I forget which) includes a descendant of David who the prophets explicitly booted out of the possible messiah-ancestral possibilities, and - and this is really important:

each list is 12-14 people.
The time from David to Jesus is ~ ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

Typical generations will give you 3 to 4 people per century (or more), so in ten centuries, ANY truly accurate list of ancestors should consist of around 30 to 40 people. Maybe if a few of these guys didn't procreate until the age of 50, you might cut that list down SOME - but even if every one on the list was 50 when that particular son was born, you still end up with a list of 20 people, so:

Whatever those lists are, they are not - and cannot be - 'father to father to father to son'. They are either confabulated (made up) or they are picking and choosing which ancestors they bother to mention (possible). Or (I've read this in commentaries) there was something important about the actual number of ancestors included (compare Adam to Noah for instance, say the commenters, or Noah to Abraham).

[ena]

The genealogical lists are included for theological (sorry, doctrinal) reasons: to show that Jesus was a viable candidate for messiah, as a lineal descendant of David. The lists are -at best - ''apocryphal". There are two lists, they don't agree with each other, at least one (I forget which) includes a descendant of David who the prophets explicitly booted out of the possible messiah-ancestral possibilities, and - and this is really important:

each list is 12-14 people.
The time from David to Jesus is ~ ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

Typical generations will give you 3 to 4 people per century (or more), so in ten centuries, ANY truly accurate list of ancestors should consist of around 30 to 40 people. Maybe if a few of these guys didn't procreate until the age of 50, you might cut that list down SOME - but even if every one on the list was 50 when that particular son was born, you still end up with a list of 20 people, so:

Whatever those lists are, they are not - and cannot be - 'father to father to father to son'. They are either confabulated (made up) or they are picking and choosing which ancestors they bother to mention (possible). Or (I've read this in commentaries) there was something important about the actual number of ancestors included (compare Adam to Noah for instance, say the commenters, or Noah to Abraham).

Good comment. Definitely made up. I don't know why the 3 groups of 14 generations the author mentions when the names he gives is one name short. The gospels were given the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to identify them. The apostles were probably illiterate. This was very common in that era. Bart talks about the authors of the gospels on this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhM5lbVBgkk

[agricola]

One thing I remember reading recently, which was kind of a surprise: in the past, 'reading' and 'writing' were totally separate topics. Many people could read - but relatively few learned to WRITE - it is a fine muscle hand skill, and not everyone had the time or inclination to learn it. So many people might be able to read something, but would not be able to reproduce it by hand. They would be able to read a document, and sign it perhaps, but would not have learned how to shape letters, how to hold a quill or pencil or brush...they would dictate to a professional scribe who DID know how to write - and many of them relied on the scribes to 'make it sound right'.

Scribes were often also translators, so they could listen to dictation in one language and would write 'the sense' of it in a different one.