How does one know that the Bible is inerrant?

[patg]

Maranatha:

From ***DEI VERBUM ***DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION:

11…
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Note well that this is not a blanket statement of biblical inerrancy - it specifically limits inerrancy to:

• "…that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

and

• “…for reformation of manners and discipline in right living…”

In other words, it is inerrant in matters of faith and morals. It is full of errors in regards to science, biology, geography, history, and so on. *Dei Verbum *also demands that we consider literary forms, cultural norms, and strive to determine the intent of the author. If the intent of the author is to teach theological truths, it is thus ridiculous to insist they are writing a hisory or science book also.

 

[patg]

Maranatha:

I think it’s reasonable to assume that contemporaries from the same region, after three years of instruction, can as a group, get the message correct.

You are implying that we have decent copies of the gospels and that they were written by deirect followers, which is hardly true. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The nest oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The translations all of us use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

We really don’t have the solid foundation some are assuming. It is pretty clear that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by. An anlysis of many of the common sayings shows that they were modified as Christology developed.

 

[Maranatha]

patg:

You are implying that we have decent copies of the gospels and that they were written by deirect followers, which is hardly true. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The nest oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The translations all of us use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

I’m sorry if I left that impression but, in a later post I detailed:

The first step in the argument simply shows that we have more physical copies which are closer to the original writings than any other ancient document. We have copies in multiple languages from which we can cross reference to find copy and translation errors. The cross reference can also be used to work out the original meaning of the authors.

We really don’t have the solid foundation some are assuming. It is pretty clear that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by. An anlysis of many of the common sayings shows that they were modified as Christology developed.

Can you give some specifics on where you think the story was developed?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Actually, you may be missing a very important point.

The culture in which the Bible was written was one of oral tradition. We all know from what we learned in elementary school that in the ancient times, stories were passed down from generation to generation by story tellers whom memorized them perfectly. For instance, I believe that Homer’s Odyssey was not written down until ceturies after Homer’s death, but was kept by this oral traditon. It is very similar to that of the Bedouin tribes today.

Now researchers have done a lot of study of these Bedouins. They have spent years watching them secretly as they have told their stories. What has been learned is truly amazing. The older story tellers will tell incredible, lenghty stories, telling the same stories again and again. What is amazing is that they not only convey the same ideas each time, but use exactly the same words and even inflection each time. What is even more amazing is that if the story teller makes even the slightest mistake, the listeners realize it and refuse to let him go on until he has corrected the mistake. Young story tellers are “trained” in this way, because they must master the story completely without error in order for the listeners to allow them to finish.

This is the same way in which the Biblical accounts were handed down before being written. We can trust in its accuracy.

 

[Mike_O]

patg:

You are implying that we have decent copies of the gospels and that they were written by deirect followers, which is hardly true. The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The nest oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The translations all of us use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the new testament.

We really don’t have the solid foundation some are assuming. It is pretty clear that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by. An anlysis of many of the common sayings shows that they were modified as Christology developed.

Where are you getting your information from?

The dates of the copies are irrelevant. The letters of Paul, for instance, come from the 50’s, extremely proximate to Christ’s public ministry.

Your contention that the Gospels were “embellished and edited” is pure speculation and bespeaks a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s power to preserve the intention of the original works. We don’t have the original handwritten manuscripts of a number of classic literary works, nor, as far as I am aware, do we possess St. Augustine’s “Confessions” parchments. To suggest that the very substance of these works was altered by hypothetical tampering is baseless without evidence.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Mike O:

Where are you getting your information from?

The dates of the copies are irrelevant. The letters of Paul, for instance, come from the 50’s, extremely proximate to Christ’s public ministry.

Your contention that the Gospels were “embellished and edited” is pure speculation and bespeaks a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s power to preserve the intention of the original works. We don’t have the original handwritten manuscripts of a number of classic literary works, nor, as far as I am aware, do we possess St. Augustine’s “Confessions” parchments. To suggest that the very substance of these works was altered by hypothetical tampering is baseless without evidence.

This is correct. Modern textual sciences are able to ascertain the authenticity of a manuscript to an amazing degree. It really is astounding what they can do.

There are several historical figures that kids learn about in school that we simply take for granted as having existed, but the truth is that we have more evidence that the Bible is accurate than we do that these folks even existed! (I don’t want to mention speficis ones because I honestly don’t remember and I don’t want to say something untrue. Perhaps someone who does know could post examples).

 

[patg]

Maranatha:

Can you give some specifics on where you think the story was developed?

Where? I’m not sure what you mean… There were years of oral tradition followed by various attempts at collating and editing the memories and stories. All the manuscripts we use for our translations show evidence of editing - corrections, changes, etc. The gospels we use contain obvious additions that weren’t in the “originals” - the whole ending of John, for example, is a later addition by someone who wrote in a totally different form of Greek. Various sayings of Jesus are softened and explanations were added as one goes form the earliest gospel (probably Mark) to the later gospels.

Then, if one accepts “Q” as a possibility and sees Thomas as an early “sayings” gospel, the process of development is even more pronounced.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Maranatha:

If the Koran claims to be inerrant, do you accept that and trust it in all matters of consequence?

Actually the Koran claims to be divine, not just inerrant and only in the original Arabic. And no I don’t accept that; the divine nature of it or its inerrancy.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

patg:

It is pretty clear that Jesus’ story was developed, edited, and embellished as time went by. An anlysis of many of the common sayings shows that they were modified as Christology developed.

Let’s see some evidence to back up this assertion.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

patg:

The gospels we use contain obvious additions that weren’t in the “originals” - the whole ending of John, for example, is a later addition by someone who wrote in a totally different form of Greek. Various sayings of Jesus are softened and explanations were added as one goes form the earliest gospel (probably Mark) to the later gospels.

Then, if one accepts “Q” as a possibility and sees Thomas as an early “sayings” gospel, the process of development is even more pronounced.

The long ending that you’re referring to is in the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20), not John.

Q is a theory that is very much in doubt.

And Thomas has never been accepted as Inspired.

Stop reading Dan Brown.

 

[Maranatha]

Richard_Hurtz:

Actually the Koran claims to be divine, not just inerrant and only in the original Arabic. And no I don’t accept that; the divine nature of it or its inerrancy.

Why do you accept the Bible as inspired and not the Koran (as inspired or divine)?

 

[patg]

Mike O:

Where are you getting your information from?

The dates of the copies are irrelevant. The letters of Paul, for instance, come from the 50’s, extremely proximate to Christ’s public ministry.

It is interesting that you would use Paul as an example since he provides almost no historical information on Jesus whatsoever - no stories, no teachings - nothing about his ministry even related to historical evidence. He apparently didn’t know any significant details and he wrote well before the gospels were put together. I don’t know of many who would think 20 years is “close proximity” in relation to memories.

Your contention that the Gospels were “embellished and edited” is pure speculation

It’s really not *my *contention; it’s a near certainty I have learned after years of reading and studying dozens of scripture scholars over many years. The idea that it is “pure speculation” is pure nonsense - read any comparative analysis of the gospels and you will read and see the obvious - words and admonitions are “softened”, explanations are added, and entire meanings are changed as you go from the early to the later writings.

… and bespeaks a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit’s power to preserve the intention of the original works.

I never said the intention was not preserved. AND if the writings are so critically important, isn’t it strange that the Holy Spirit didn’t bother to inspire anyone to save a copy or two???

We don’t have the original handwritten manuscripts of a number of classic literary works, nor, as far as I am aware, do we possess St. Augustine’s “Confessions” parchments. To suggest that the very substance of these works was altered by hypothetical tampering is baseless without evidence.

That’s ridiculous - have you never seen copies of the manuscripts we have? They are covered with corrections and editing. They are in piles of tiny pieces. Versions of the same gospel have totally different text in places. Insertions written in different dialects of Greek are frequently found. For example, the whole ending of John was added on by someone much later as we can tell by the very form of the Greek…

 

[patg]

Richard_Hurtz:

The long ending that you’re referring to is in the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20), not John.

John also has a similar ending.

Q is a theory that is very much in doubt.

And very much discussed as being real. Note that I specifically prefixed this comment with “*if one accepts”. *I am well aware of the controversy.

And Thomas has never been accepted as Inspired.

Regardless of the inspired nature, it is real evidence for the existence of “sayings” gospels.

Stop reading Dan Brown.

You’d rather I stuck to the Jesus seminar? No thanks, Dan and many others like him are the small lights of reason which brought me back to and keep me associated with the church.

 

[patg]

Richard_Hurtz:

Let’s see some evidence to back up this assertion.

No problem, I’ll get back to you later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Maranatha]

patg:

The gospels we use contain obvious additions that weren’t in the “originals” - the whole ending of John, for example, is a later addition by someone who wrote in a totally different form of Greek

While your speculation has sone credabiltiy it is easier to believe that the ending of John’s Gospel was written at a different time - perhaps almost 20 years later then the erlier chapers. If the ending was written more then 20 years, then it’s easy to see why the writting style can be different and the author the same.

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
(From Chapter 12)
As stated in the 1953 edition of The Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture, it was presumed that the earlier chapters were written just a few years prior to this date. ((CCHS 781j)). But in more recent times scholars such as Tresmontant ((CTH 324)), Thied ((CTR xii)), Orchard ((BOO 18)) and Robinson ((JATR 311)) approaching this question from very different directions have concluded that this presumption was an error. They hold that at least the first twenty chapters were written prior to 70 AD.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

bookmark

 

[Lazerlike42]

Looks like this thread is going to be good practice for May.

 

[precious_roy]

Lazerlike42:

Looks like this thread is going to be good practice for May.

Do they quiz you in your RCIA or something?

 

[Lazerlike42]

precious_roy:

Do they quiz you in your RCIA or something?

Gosh no. If RCIA quizzed us on what is in this thread, I would be OVERFLOWING with JOY.

No, unfortunately my RCIA program sometimes struggles to be orthodox.

I was referring to all the apologetics that are going to be necessary when The Da Vinci Code movie is released.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Daniel Marsh:

How does one know that the Bible is inerrant?

Don’t confuse inerrant with infallible.

Things of this kind can’t be known - only believed.​

There is no way of knowing that Christ is in the Eucharist, that the Bible is inspired, or that Jesus is indeed God.

There is no such thing as knowing beyond all possibility of doubt or mistake that anything whatever is true - every claim to knowledge requires faith, of some sort. I don’t know that sentence even makes sense - I have faith that it does I don’t know that you are not a Martian - I just have no reason to think you are. Do I know that I am a human being ? No. I could be a Martian; Martians may be indistinguishable from human beings. And so on; nothing whatever in this world can be known.

There are different degrees of probability, but no more. It is conceivable that that WW2 was a massive illusion - improbable in a very high degree; but not impossible. That is one of the reasons people can seriously maintain that the 1969 Moon landing was faked, or that the Shoah never happened: and those are both events in living memory.So it’s a pretty safe bet that, a few hundred years from now, scepticism about the Nazi murder of the Jews will become quite respectable, because there will be no one to “blow the gaff” - no survivors of Dachau or Belsen to say otherwise.

So with the Gospels - it has been perfectly possible to maintain in all seriousness that Jesus was a myth and the Gospels sheer invention; there are no Apostles to “blow the gaff”. It’s entirely possible - however unwelcome the suggestion may be to some - that the Apostolic Churches completely misunderstood the message of the Apostles, and turned a purely human crucified and dead Jewish Rabbi into a pre-existent dying and rising Divine Saviour: an inerrant NT is not much use, if it is an inerrant record of a misunderstood message; there is a lot more to arguing for inerrancy than inerrancy, but this is routinely overlooked.

That Jim Carrey fim about a man living a completely artificial life without knowing it explores the same difficulty of not being able to know that appearances are trustworthy.

This inescapable lack of knowing beyond all doubt is the reason we need faith to do or think anything - and Christian faith is only a special application of this need for faith.

One can have certainty even so - certainty does not require knowledge. Which is just as well So lack of knowing, does not hinder action; the Gospel can still be preached, even though it cannot be proved. IMO, Christians worry about proof and knowledge far too much; to do so risks putting the emphasis on our poverty, and not on the richness of our God. The sooner we get out of the lime-light, the better

Faith is in a Person - not in statements. Christ can be known, because He comes into us and our intellects in a way which is more immediate than the way statements do. We have to reason our way to conclusions, and then convert the conclusions into statements so that they become communicable to others. But Christ is immediate, quicker than thought: He is the Way by which we go to Him, as well as the End of our journey; and His knowing of us, precedes our knowing about Him, and is its Cause. That, ISTM, is how we know anything - because He knows us: His Light relieves our darkness and ignorance. ##