1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Innerrancy - an open request for help

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Matt Black, Oct 8, 2003.

  1. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, a false dichotomy. There are in fact
    numberous options.
    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Ed,

    I do not believe the text to be in error; but assuming that the text actually is in error, then, since the text purports to be a verbatim quote of God, there can only be two conclusions:

    a. God actually made the statement and therefore was in ignorance about His own creation.

    b. God did not actually make the statement in which case Moses lied when he said God did make the statement.

    Either of these conclusions have obvious and far reaching theological ramifications.

    You say there are many other options; let's hear some of them. And I'm not talking about translation options. I am talking options only in the case that we assume the original text actually erred in it's classification of animals.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  2. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a bogus translation. The text says "flying creeping things" not "winged insects."

    To start with, this is an umprovable statement. The best you can say is that as far as you know thre are no flying creatures that have four feet. And if you could prove that there are no such animals on earth today, you could not thereby prove that there never were. As far as we know there are no flying reptiles on earth today. But the fossil record would indicate that at one time there were.

    But if you would read the text it says that the creatures identified have, in addition to "four feet", "legs above their feet." In other words, the front legs of what we call "insects" were considered in addition to the "four feet."

    All of that aside, assuming that you are correct and the text is in error, are you willing to admit that it is more than a technical error, but greatly effects one's view of the nature of revelation?

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    As Ed said, this is a false dichotomy.

    But let's get right to the point about "the man who still contends that the passage is in error." That man has to assume that the passage remains exactly as it was given from God to Moses in order to claim it has theological implications. So I would say to that man, "prove we're not talking about an extinct creature, and get me the original text and prove to me that this is not a vocabulary issue, a translation or copyist error, and then we'll talk."
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    As Ed said, this is a false dichotomy.

    But let's get right to the point about "the man who still contends that the passage is in error." That man has to assume that the passage remains exactly as it was given from God to Moses in order to claim it has theological implications. So I would say to that man, "prove we're not talking about an extinct creature, and get me the original text and prove to me that this is not a vocabulary issue, a translation or copyist error, and then we'll talk."
    </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother npetreley.
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a bogus translation. The text says "flying creeping things" not "winged insects."
    </font>[/QUOTE]A fascinating criticism of the New American Standard, Revised. We all await the enlightenment as to what creatures you know of that are "flying creeping things" and yet are not "winged insects".

    Me, earlier:
    You:
    Well, men have been collecting insects and bugs and such for hundreds of years now, and none have been found yet. Moreover, the theory of evolution would indicate that the insect kind would retain its identifying characteristics in very conservative fashion, for something as critical as the six leg pattern. So there are theoretical grounds for going ahead with the assumption that flying swarming crawling guys will always be found to have six legs.

    This particular inerrancy rescue intepretation is clearly not in touch with the text because the text refers not only to the crawly fliers with legs above their feet but all others as well. Such creatures as flies, for example. They are the ones that are unclean, and they described thusly: "But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you."

    Well, of course it does. It is for this reason that as I stated before, I do not consider the bible inerrant in every factual detail, but by faith I take it as inerrant for matters of faith and practice.

    In this particular passage, while it would not be wise to go to the passage for guidance as to the number of legs we'll find on the flying crawly things around us, it is perfectly clear in explaining what is clean and unclean. I think this is a valid sample text for the way we can fruitfully use the Bible in our lives. We can use it to learn from God what is good for us but not use it to hold back those who study the sciences.

    [ October 11, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Paul of Eugene ]
     
  6. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    You boys are evading the issue. Npetrely and Ed tell me I have presented a false dichotomy. Paul of Eugene, though he admits the alledged errors have far reaching theological ramifications, still tells me that the text is theologically authoritative.

    But the stubborn fact remains that the author of Leviticus says that God said these things about hoof-splitting, cud chewing, and four footed creatures. The man who said the text is in error on the particulars must either conclude that God erred or Moses lied when He said God said these things.

    It is not enough to say that this is a false dichotomy. You must tell me what is faulty in my reasoning. You haven't even attempted to do that.

    Let me put it this way, do Ed, Npetrely, and Paul believe that God actually said the things to Moses that Leviticus chapter 11 says that He said. Remember, the chapter begins with these words:

    "And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth."

    Ok, let's have a straight answer: in your opinion, did God say this or didn't He?

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark Osgatharp: "Ok, let's have a straight answer: in your opinion,
    did God say this or didn't He?"

    God said it.
    What we believe He meant by it,
    is how God will measure us.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello Mark! In response to your post above

    Here's the sequence I perceive for the Leviticus four legs passage:

    - The Jewish tribes developed their traditions and ways much of it under God's guidance, even prior to Abraham and ongoing.

    - Moses led the people out of Egypt and under God's leadership set out the law. Moses left the people with some written traditions, some oral traditions.

    - There came a time when it was necessary to reduce to writing all the tradition, including the oral; Leviticus came to be penned in its final form at this time.

    - Some of the reducing of the traditional rules to written form was assigned to a scribe who inserted the words found in Lev 11:1-2 to the heading of the section containing our grasshopper passage:
    "The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth." (NASU)


    He did his best to be faithful to the traditions, and he knew them well, but it was his own wording that is actually present as he describes the number of legs the flying crawling things have. He honestly reported his understanding that these instructions go clear back to Moses and God talking to Moses, but the traditions he had left were not the exact words, just knowledge of the rules.

    Now turnabout is fair play. It's time for YOU to answer a question from ME. Assuming you reject my explanation and insist that God actually dictated all the words as we see them - God would surely have known how famous this passage would become down in history and it would have been an easy thing to use the number six here. What possible reason could He have not to do that, forestalling all these questions from the beginning?
     
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Now that I've set the cat among the pigeons (or should that be the coneys among the rabbits? :D ), let me throw something else into the mix. (NB: sorry got it wrong ref the Lev verses again [​IMG] - 11:5 is about the hyrax/ rock badger/ coney, 11:6 is quite clearly rabbit). Mark Osgatharp correctly, IMO (yes, Mark, I'm just as shocked as you are to be in agreement with you ;) ), observes that how we view these 'errors' can profoundly affect our theology. It seems from this that there are two main choices - either total inerrancy a la Chicago Declaration or regarding the Bible as a much more human document(s) that has 'evolved' over time and whilst inspired by God is nevertheless a product of various times and cultures, including the errors this produces. It is to this view that I have in recent years inclined, although more recently as I said in the OP, I have found this to be lacking spiritually (again, backing Mark up), and I would like to be 'more Chicago'but come up against all these 'problem' verses.

    So...my (very partial) suggestion/solution, alluded to at the start of this post: my grandmother when I was little often used to say "come out with me and watch the sun set, Matthew" and we would watch the sun go down together. Now, we all know that the sun doesn't actually set; it doesn't move, the Earth does. But no-one would think of my grandmother as being a liar for saying that (any gentleman who does will meet me at dawn with the weapon of his choice!). Could this not be applied also to this 'chewing the cud' and four-footed creatures business - they appear to chew the cud therefore this statement is not a lie?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, it seems inerrancy is
    the way to go, for spiritual reasons.
    Shouldn't inerrancy then be by faith?

    The new logical method is to start with
    undefined terms & assumptions,
    these lead to defined terms and theorems.

    If the undefined terms are "man" and "state",
    then you have a logical system of government.
    If the undefined terms are "point"
    and "line" then you have a logical geometry.
    If the undefined terms are "human" and "god",
    then you have a logic of religion.

    The "assumption"s are statemetns agreed to as true.
    But "assumption" itself seems to indicate
    that we guessed & aren't all that sure.
    In the past, this element of logic was
    called an "axiom". Axiom is a self-evident
    truth or a universally accepted principle
    or rule.


    The old logical method was to start with
    undefined terms & axioums,
    these lead to defined terms and theorems.

    But these days it is hard to get
    people to agree about much anyway :(
    So between people today, today's logic
    starts with undefined terms and "assumptions".

    But i've found for spiritual satisfaction:
    1. God's logic is way high above & totally
    different from man's logic.
    2. I can believe my axioms, or at least
    hope my axioms are correct and get on
    with the rest of my life.

    So, i consider inerrancy of the Scripture
    to be axomatic and go from there.

    But then we humans like to run into
    appartent discrepancies internal to a Bible
    or between Bibles. My hope of inerrancy
    tells me:
    1. if i know more, i can resolve this
    apparent coflict
    2. if i don't figure out a resolution
    to this apparent comflict, the Bible(s)
    is(are) inerrant anyway & i'll get back
    with you later.

    I know, some will say my course of
    action is wishy-washy (in fact, like here):
    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=003251
    But, i've learned to ignore them.
    There are 15% of the baptists religiously
    conservative, there are 15% of the baptists
    religiously liberal, there are 70% of the
    baptists religiously moderate.
    I'm one moderate sick of being labeled
    "conservative" by the minority liberals
    and labeled "liberal" by the minority
    conservaties. Maybe we moderates should
    unite and shun liberals and conservatives
    alike?

    [​IMG]

    But anyway, all 10 of the Bibles on my
    desk are inerrant:
    NIV, NASB, KJV1873, NLT,
    nKJV, New Century Version (NCV),
    KJV1611, KJV 1679, Amplified Bible,
    and Contemporary English Version (CEV).
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    To start with, this is sheer speculation; you have no evidence that this actually happened. But assuming it did you are still faced with two problems:

    1. If some man classified the animals this way, then how can you say he was in error? Are you saying that a man who can write Hebrew can't count legs on bugs?

    2. But if the man did err in his classification of animals then he is still guilty for putting words in the mouth of God that God did not speak. And the Lord,

    "will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

    If, therefore, your scenario is true, the text still has nor moral or spiritual authority.

     
  12. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Ed, my problem is not so much with taking inerrancy as a matter of faith - when I came to faith in God I did a similar exercise; it is more that I find blind faith ie: faith without evidence or, worse still, faith where the evidence appears to be against it, to be problematic and unreasonable (in all senses of that word). Like I said, shoot down the contrary evidence and life becomes a lot easier for me.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are the one who is evading the most important issue.

    That is not an established fact at all. The fact is that you have an English translation of a copy of Leviticus, and your translation talks about cud chewing, etc. That is the only reliable fact in your argument.

    As I said, the man who says the text is in error on the particulars must first demonstrate that the English translation of the passage is an exact representation of how the text was given from God to Moses. Only then can you start to say it has theological implications.

    So I would say to that man, "prove we're not talking about an extinct creature, and get me the original text and prove to me that this is not a vocabulary issue, a translation or copyist error, and then we'll talk." If you can't do this, then your whole premise falls, because your premise is predicated on the assumption that the English text you have today accurately reflects what God gave to Moses.

    You haven't even addressed this, let alone met the challenge, so it is you who are avoiding the issue.
     
  14. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Hmmm...not too sure that I like this 'copyist's mistake' explanation. Since we don't possess the original autographs, this explanation would suggest that no version we have today can be trusted....don't like that at all.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand, Brother Matt.
    What I find satisfying, may not satisfy you.
    I just wanted to share what I found,
    in case it might help you also.

    May all God's best blessings fall unto
    Brother Matt, his family, and his ministry.
    Amen! [​IMG]
     
  16. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    But all scenarios are speculation anyway. My scenario has the advantage of explaining what we see in the text in a reasonable fashion. Some other scenarios do not manage to do that. And you realize I am not the only one to hold to this scenario. Its even in the Broadman Commentary.

    Not that he cannot count legs, rather that he couldn't be bothered with such a trivial matter. Without our training from childhood that all insects have six legs, and being a member of an occupational class protected from dirty work, it probably never even crossed his mind that leg counts mattered in any possible way.

    You speak from a time with established copyright laws and standards of reporting that had not yet been developed in systematic form at the time this scribe was writing.

    That is a personal judgment. Why can't one go ahead and have faith that God preserved what was essential to Him in this text, in spite of the process by which it came to be? Answer: one certainly can.
     
  17. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's the funny thing about truth. You can't change it just because you don't like it.

    But finding a copyist error (or suspecting one) does not mean we cannot trust scripture as a whole. Scripture itself and the long chain of historical manuscripts contain a lot of checks and balances that make it reasonabily obvious when a copyist error has occurred. That's why it's so easy to spot the copyist error in the "brother of" Goliath.

    A more subtle and difficult problem is one of translation, especially when we're not certain about how to interpret a Hebrew word, phrase or expression. But even if we get it wrong, I don't see how it makes much difference. My faith in Christ and in the reliability of Scripture might be affected if one Gospel said Jesus was a woman born of a virgin man, and there was no way to explain this bizarre twist. But my faith does not rise or fall on whether or not the scripture in Leviticus is talking about an extinct creature or a how a rabbit chews its dung.
     
  18. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is to say, assuming the text is actually correct in it's theological assertions.

    God was describing certain creatures which the Jews were not to eat. He described the creaters in such a way that the Jews would know which creatures to omit from their diet. The fact that you don't know which creatures He was describing or that you don't like the fact that He distinguished the front legs of insects from their four feet is your problem, not God's.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  19. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Npetrely,

    If we follow your philosphy we can ammend the Bible to make it say anything we want it to say. That is, in fact, what many psuedo-inerrantists do. Anything in the Bible that poses a problem to their mind they simply assert was a copyist or translation error.

    I do agree that there is validity in your argument that they may have defined terms such as "chew the cud" differently than we do today. But to assume a copyist error simply because we don't understand something about the text is intellectually irresponsible and dishonest.

    In fact, I did acknowledge from the start that this could be a vocabulary issue or a matter of an extinct creature.

    I will not, however, concede to any "copyist" error which is sheer fabrication on your part. No, I can't prove that there aren't copyist errors but neither can you prove that their are. This is where we must exercise faith that the same God who inspired the text has preserved it intact for our use. To believe otherwise overthrows the whole concept of inspiration.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  20. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    You speak from a time with established copyright laws and standards of reporting that had not yet been developed in systematic form at the time this scribe was writing.</font>[/QUOTE]Try using that one on the Lord in the day of judgement! :eek: And remember that the Lord said in Jeremiah,

    "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD."

    Mark Osgatharp
     
Loading...