Inerrancy

[darinhouston]

Callers frequently ask Steve about his views of inerrancy, and in his response he almost always mentions that notwithstanding the transmission errors, there is no passage he's aware of that such errors would touch on fundamental aspects of our theology (or something like that). Paidion's discussions of 1 Timothy 3:16 in another thread potentially points out such a verse. Though the subject is taught elsewhere in scripture, this verse bears directly on certain proofs of Jesus' nature as God.

I had never heard this before, but apparently some manuscripts use θεός (God) and others use merely ός (he or which). THE NIV goes with the latter, thus...

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He* appeared in a body,* was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
Footnotes:
* Some manuscripts God
* Or in the flesh

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God* was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
Footnote:
* NU-Text reads Who.

This seeming transmission error (one of them is wrong) certainly bears on a central doctrine. Perhaps we can prove it elsewhere, but this strikes me as having been a pretty powerful prooftext for the matter, which until now I assumed without question.

I also note that the RSV doesn't use "godliness" as the mystery -- but instead suggests the mystery is our religion. That's a pretty major difference in interpretation and bears on a major point of theology.

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. I Timothy 3:16 RSV

One day, I'll share my testimony about a period of intense doubt I had some years back, but suffice it to say, lack of honesty and transparency by my teachers and preachers and dogmatic assertions about these sort of subjects as central to the faith left me in quite a quandry when I began to learn there has been some question on some of these doctrines throughout history. I didn't know who to believe, and started to doubt the entire "system" of faith I'd been taught. Thankfully, God in His mercy and grace brought me out of this period with an increased faith as I let go of some of these commonly held doctrines and let the bible speak for itself even in its ambiguity. I still struggle to understand these things, but neither my faith nor my praxis rest on them.

[SteveF]

Hi Darren, I’m assuming what Steve G means is these textual variants do not change Christian teaching. If 1Tim 6 includes the word “God” it would certainly strengthen the teaching of the deity of Christ but the word “He” doesn’t negate it either. In a similar fashion, 1John 5:7 is more than likely a very late addition to manuscripts. If it’s included in the bible it would likely be the strongest verse to support the trinity. On the other hand, many Christians in the 4th century argued for the Trinitarian doctrine without quoting from 1John 5:7 (most likely because it was added after the 4th century). Unfortunately, if you are inclined toward Arianism this inserted verse would be hard to get around.

Fyi…the word “inerrant” to describe the bible was not standard until the late 1800’s. During this time textual criticism was on the rise and the bible came under attack from liberal theologians. BB Warfield helped spearhead a movement where it became necessary for a Christian to use the word “inerrant” to be included in the Christian (non-liberal) fold. There were some Christians, like the Anabaptist, who balked at this since the bible never made the claim of inerrancy. Before Warfield it was more common for Christians to use biblical words like “inspired”, “instructive” etc…. Considering the effort certain early (<500AD) Christians went to trying to harmonize the gospels there seemed to be a concept of inerrancy. On the other hand, I don’t know if they would have agreed with Warfield’s position.

SteveF

PS...I'd like to hear your story sometime. It sounds like I could relate to it somewhat.

[darinhouston]

I just want to add that it was the spirit of Truth and the humility of doctrine in Steve's teaching that attracted me to his teaching and to this forum. Steve has never been afraid to say "I'm not sure what X means," or "this is disputed," or "we can't know X but I think Y," etc. and I both appreciate that very much and wish more teachers and preachers shared this approach.

[Michelle]

I just want to add that it was the spirit of Truth and the humility of doctrine in Steve's teaching that attracted me to his teaching and to this forum. Steve has never been afraid to say "I'm not sure what X means," or "this is disputed," or "we can't know X but I think Y," etc. and I both appreciate that very much and wish more teachers and preachers shared this approach.

Amen!

[Paidion]

Callers frequently ask Steve about his views of inerrancy, and in his response he almost always mentions that notwithstanding the transmission errors, there is no passage he's aware of that such errors would touch on fundamental aspects of our theology (or something like that). Paidion's discussions of 1 Timothy 3:16 in another thread potentially points out such a verse. Though the subject is taught elsewhere in scripture, this verse bears directly on certain proofs of Jesus' nature as God.

Darin, Phillipians 2:6, although it does not have transmission errors in the Greek manuscripts, has been translated in seemingly opposite ways, theologically.

... who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God... NKJV

...who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped... ESV

The NKJV (and related translations) seem to be saying that Jesus was in the form of God and was, in fact, equal to Him, and didn't think that His equality with God was robbing God in any way . This translation seems to affirm the "co-equal" aspect of "the Trinity". But the ESV (and related translations) seem to be saying that Jesus did not try to be equal with God, unlike Satan who declared, "I will be like the Most High". This translation also seems to fit Jesus' words, "The Father is greater than I."

Verse 7 which follows, makes sense after the ESV translation:
but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

That little word "but" is used by way of contrast. Rather than grasping after equality with God, Jesus did the opposite. He made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant.
Verse 7 does not seem to make sense in its position after verse 6 when verse 6 is rendered as in the NKJV.

[Priestly1]

Are we speaking of inerracy of the "Textus Receptus" and "Masoretic Text" or an English Translation?


I prefer the 1901 American Standard Version Bible for literal "wooden" translation. But the NRSV or NASB are good too. I am a fan of the 1611 AV complete...which I have a great Copy of....but most 1611 KJV only folks disinterrest me as ignorant baffoons.

I use the Thomas Nelson published "Orthodox Study Bible." It is the Textus Receptus (NKJV) N.T. English version with the complete LXX Text and Canon O.T. (NKJV O.T. revised according to the full LXX Text). It is the first English Bible 100% translated from the Greek Bible into NKJV English from Genesis to Revelations. It compares to Tyndale's and Luther's complete translations.....notes and all.

I hold the complete LXX Tanakh & the complete Byzantine Textus as the Biblical Canon and Rule of Faith.

"All Scripture breathed by God is useful for study....et.al."




Rev. Ken


What we need to discuss is what canon is inspired........the full Old Tanakh or the short Pharasaic Tanakh of the Pharasees from Jamnia in 96 CE.
The full LXX Tanakh OT Text and Canon is represented in the Qirbet Qumran digs (Dead Sea Scrolls) as is a an earlier form of the Revised MasoreticOT Text and Canon Tanakh OT Text. Protestants follow the Masoretic Text, Readings and Canon established by Talmuduc Judaism since 96 CE in Jamnia.........while Orthodox Christians follow the Canon and Text cited by the authors of the New Testament.....you decide.





Rev. ken

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Ken,

Relevant (and current) topic here:

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2397

[sjsnjc]

Are we speaking of inerracy of the "Textus Receptus" and "Masoretic Text" or an English Translation?


I prefer the 1901 American Standard Version Bible for literal "wooden" translation. But the NRSV or NASB are good too. I am a fan of the 1611 AV complete...which I have a great Copy of....but most 1611 KJV only folks disinterrest me as ignorant baffoons.

I use the Thomas Nelson published "Orthodox Study Bible." It is the Textus Receptus (NKJV) N.T. English version with the complete LXX Text and Canon O.T. (NKJV O.T. revised according to the full LXX Text). It is the first English Bible 100% translated from the Greek Bible into NKJV English from Genesis to Revelations. It compares to Tyndale's and Luther's complete translations.....notes and all.

I hold the complete LXX Tanakh & the complete Byzantine Textus as the Biblical Canon and Rule of Faith.

"All Scripture breathed by God is useful for study....et.al."




Rev. Ken


What we need to discuss is what canon is inspired........the full Old Tanakh or the short Pharasaic Tanakh of the Pharasees from Jamnia in 96 CE.
The full LXX Tanakh OT Text and Canon is represented in the Qirbet Qumran digs (Dead Sea Scrolls) as is a an earlier form of the Revised MasoreticOT Text and Canon Tanakh OT Text. Protestants follow the Masoretic Text, Readings and Canon established by Talmuduc Judaism since 96 CE in Jamnia.........while Orthodox Christians follow the Canon and Text cited by the authors of the New Testament.....you decide.





Rev. ken

I haven't been to this forum for quite some time. As Steve is a friend and acquaintance of mine I do like to support his endeavors by making use of his, faith, erudition, theology, credentials, resources, and, most of all, his friendship and company when I am able to connect with him. So, here I come back to the forum and start nosing around only to come across this exercise. Well...I read and study the KJV and will until someone can prove to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is something better out there. Nobody has done that yet. From a personal standpoint, I don't care which Bible you use. I read and study the one I read and study not because of what began as my own personal choice due to the fact that the KJV was the Bible we had around when I was young, but by the choice that is made for me by God. Yes, that's right. I have had all of the Bibles...read them...studied them...and every time I do that, I am, mysteriously, maybe to some but not to me, drawn back to the KJV. It is that simple.

As for the name calling, if one chooses to use that tactic, one should learn to spell. Or is that that the modern spelling of the word buffoon which must be correct because it is...what...modern? I'm sorry...all of us who used the original spelling for all of these years must be wrong. Maybe we got this new improved spelling from the Dead Sea scrolls. And, not only am I a...whatever that word is...I am ignorant also. So much for all those college degrees I have. And, just for future reference, the other words you are using and can't spell are inerrancy and disinterest. Also, not to nitpick, but, the phrase et al has no periods. Imagine being called an ignorant "baffoon" by this guy...unbelievable.

Eze 22:25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof.

Looks as if I should connect with Steve in a different manner. Blessings to all...

[darinhouston]

Also, not to nitpick, but, the phrase et al has no periods. Imagine being called an ignorant "baffoon" by this guy...unbelievable.

Welcome, and I hope you don't leave. Just for fun....In the spirit of your post, and due to my self-appointed mission to correct such trivial abuses of Latin (the only foreign language course I ever took), I should point out that "et al" does properly include one period. In Latin, et al. is an abbreviation of the phrase "et alii" and means "and the others" in contrast with et c. or etc. which are abbreviations for "et cetera" (not etcetera) which means "and the rest."

On a related note (and simply for trivial interest), the ampersand "&" is so-called because the recitation of the alphabet used to include "et" (meaning "and") as a letter by itself following z -- a child would say "...x, y, z, and per se and" (sounds like the word ampersand). The commonly used script for et resembled the ampersand, and it eventually became known as a letter "&" in its own right. We've since dropped it as a letter from our recitation of the alphabet, but we retain the use of the ampersand.

[Paidion]

Thanks for the tidbit of trivia, Darin. I had never before heard about the origin of "ampersand". I checked it out in the Dictionary of Word Origins and found the comments there corresponding to yours in every point.

As for "inerrancy", I would like to know exactly what is deemed inerrant. Since the list of writings of the NT considered authoritative continued to change as time passed, what assurance do we have that the present list is the inspired and inerrant one?

For example, the book of Jude, not accepted in the second century church (except that it is included in the Muratorian Fragment) contains a glaring factual error. The author quotes the Book of Enoch, dated at around 150 B.C. This time frame for the Book of Enoch has been determined by internal evidence. However, the author of Jude states that his quotation was the prophecy of the historic Enoch, the seventh from Adam. The book contains references to the "revolutions of the luminaries" arriving at "the gates of heaven" .

First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the sun; the orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole of it being replete with splendid and flaming fire. Its chariot, where it ascends, the wind blows. The sun sets in heaven, and returning by the north, to proceed towards the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of heaven. In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by a great gate. It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at the rising of the sun. And in the fourth gate, through which the sun with the moon proceeds, in the first part of it, there are twelve open windows; from which issues a flame, when they are opened at their proper periods. When the sun rises in heaven, it goes forth through this fourth gate thirty days and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven on a level with it descends. During that period the day is lengthened from the day, and the night curtailed from the night for thirty days. And then the day is longer by two parts than the night. The day is precisely ten parts, and the night is eight. And it [the sun] goes forth through this fourth gate, and sets in it, and turns to the fifth gate during thirty days; after which it preeeds from, and sets in, the fifth gate. Then the day becomes lengthened by a second portion, so that it is eleven parts; while the night becomes shortened, and is only seven parts. Enoch 71: 6-16

For some people it's a big deal if there should be factual errors in the Bible. Because of their view of inspiration, the attitude of these people is, "If there's a mistake in the Bible, we might as well throw the whole thing away!" But WHY? Does finding a mistake in a history book, render the whole book worthless? The record of Jesus' life and his teachings, and his death on the cross for the benefit of each of us, and the encouraging letters of Paul, are just as valid whether or not there are errors in the Book.