How does one know that the Bible is inerrant?

[Daniel_Marsh]

itsjustdave1988:

That really depends upon which Protestant you are talking to, doesn’t it? For example, the *General Assembly *of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Jun 2001, officials from the PC (USA) stated: “Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail.”

Brother Dave, you are confusing infalliblity and inerrancy. My question is not about so-called “biblical infalliblity”.

To my knowledge mainline protestant groups do not think the bible is infallible. Only some King James Only people try to make claims that the King James version is inspired in the English translation. aand I am using the word inspired very loose like.

 

[Mike_O]

Daniel Marsh:

Not really, because it does not even address my questions.

Wrong.

You asked “How do we know the Bible is inerrant?”

As itsjustdave has already said, we know because the Church, the Spouse of Christ, teaches us so.

 

[Maranatha]

Contarini:

I don’t dispute that we have figured out something pretty close to the original readings. Even Bart Ehrman’s recent polemic admits that most of the textual variations are minor. I simply don’t see how this proves the historicity of the events described.

We were discussing point number one (1) on post #4. From you post above, it seems that we can agree on point #1 and move on to point #2.

Of course not. I explicitly said otherwise. My point was exactly the opposite–that you can’t base the argument only on the conclusion of scholars who agree with you (which in some cases means a minority even of Catholic scholars). I should not have used the word “secular,” but I did define what I meant the second time I used it. I meant simply the whole academic guild of NT scholars, embracing believers and non-believers–from F. F. Bruce (may he rest in peace) to Bart Ehrman.

In other words, the fact that you can find a few conservative scholars to support what you want to argue doesn’t make the argument persuasive. To support the huge superstructure you want to build, you need historical evidence that is convincing to people of a wide variety of ideological perspectives.

Edwin

Without disparaging one scholar or another, we can weigh the validity of their work, examine the evidence each brings to the table and exercise our free will to decide which seems closer to the truth.

Since we haven’t moved beyond perhaps item #2, please remember that we use the Bible as a ancient text. We know it was written fairly close (compared to other ancient documents) to the events purported within and we have original documents of people who used the Gospels and Scripture while they were still fresh and undisputed.

 

[Maranatha]

Contarini:

Alexander the Great. The earliest biographies that we still have date from several centuries after his time, I think.

But this is a misleading argument. You are confusing evidence for texts with evidence for events. They aren’t the same. There is all sorts of archaeological and other indirect evidence for Alexander the Great. And on the other hand, proving that the NT texts were all written a century of Jesus’ time does not prove that they are accurate in all they affirm. Determining the historicity of an account does not simply boil down to counting the years between when it was written and when the events occur.

Edwin

Do you believe in the WWII Holocaust (Shoah)? Do you believe we landed a man on the moon?

The point is, people start rewriting history either for political reasons or superstitions, from almost the time it happens. It’s hard enough to convince some shortly after the event happens. It harder still once there has been 2,000 years of denial. Should we use the same standard of proof for the events in Palestine in the first century, as we use for all other history?

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

itsjustdave1988:

That’s absurd. The OT Church was “the Church.” Thus, they too had the benefit of “the Church.”

I think that this position suffers from an anachronistic reading back into the OT an understanding of the NT church

If the OT “Church” was “THE Church” how do you explain Israel’s repeated apostasies? Where is the indefectablility of the “OT Church”?

How do you explain 2 Kings 22 in light of this claim? Where is the OT Church’s guardianship of the Word of God?

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Where is the indefectablility of the “NT Church”?

Acts 20:30-38

30**Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. **

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Overall the church will not fall away, just as overall Isreal did not completely fall away. But, there will be people in the church that will seek to mislead the church just as there were people who mislead Isreal.

Apostasy
(From Nave’s Topical Bible)

Described
Deuteronomy 13:13; Hebrews 3:12

Caused by persecution
Matthew 24:9,10; Luke 8:13

Caused by worldliness
II Timothy 4:10

Guilt and punishment of
Zephaniah 1:4-6; Hebrews 10:25-31,39; II Peter 2:17,20-22

Cautions against
Hebrews 3:12; II Peter 3:17

Shall abound in the latter days
Matthew 24:12; II Thessalonians 2:3; I Timothy 4:1-3

See ANTICHRIST

UNCLASSIFIED SCRIPTURES RELATING TO
Deuteronomy 32:15; I Chronicles 28:9; Isaiah 1:28; 65:11-16; Jeremiah 17:5,6; Ezekiel 3:20; 18:24,26; 33:12,13,18; Matthew 13:20,21; 24:10,12; Mark 4:5-17; Luke 8:13; 11:24-26; John 15:6; Acts 7:39-43; I Corinthians 9:27; II Thessalonians 2:3,11,12; I Timothy 4:1,2; II Timothy 3:1-9; 4:3,4; Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-29; II Peter 2:1,15,17,20-22; 3:17; Jude 1:4-6

INSTANCES OF
Israelites
Exodus 32; Numbers 14
Saul
I Samuel 15:26-29; 18:12; 28:15,18
Amaziah
II Chronicles 25:14,27
Disciples
John 6:66
Judas
Matthew 26:14-16; 27:3-5; Mark 14:10,11; Luke 22:3-6,47,48; Acts 1:16-18
Hymenaeus and Alexander
I Timothy 1:19,20
Phygellus and Hermogenes
II Timothy 1:15

bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/Nave/ID/362

Backsliding
(From Torrey’s Topical Textbook)

Is turning from God
I Kings 11:9

Is leaving the first love
Revelation 2:4

Is departing form the simplicity of the gospel
II Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 3:1-3; 5:4,7

God is displeased at
Psalms 78:57,59

Warnings against
Psalms 85:8; I Corinthians 10:12

Guilt and consequences of
Numbers 14:43; Psalms 125:5; Isaiah 59:2,9-11; Jeremiah 5:6; 8:5,13; 15:6; Luke 9:62

Brings its own punishment
Proverbs 14:14; Jeremiah 2:19

A haughty spirit leads to
Proverbs 16:18

Proneness to
Proverbs 24:16; Hosea 11:7

Liable to continue and increase
Jeremiah 8:5; 14:7

Exhortations to return from
II Chronicles 30:6; Isaiah 31:6; Jeremiah 3:12,14,22; Hosea 6:1

Pray to be restored from
Psalms 80:3; 85:4; Lamentations 5:21

Punishment of tempting others to the sin of
Proverbs 28:10; Matthew 18:6

Not hopeless
Psalms 37:24; Proverbs 24:16

Endeavour to bring back those guilty of
Galatians 6:1; James 5:19,20

Sin of, to be confessed
Isaiah 59:12-14; Jeremiah 3:13,14; 14:7-9

Pardon of, promised
II Chronicles 7:14; Jeremiah 3:12; 31:20; 36:3

Healing of, promised
Jeremiah 3:22; Hosea 14:4

Afflictions sent to heal
Hosea 5:15

Blessedness of those who keep from
Proverbs 28:14; Isaiah 26:3,4; Colossians 1:21-23

Hateful to saints
Psalms 101:3

Exemplified
Israel
Exodus 32:8; Nehemiah 9:26; Jeremiah 3:11; Hosea 4:16
Saul
I Samuel 15:11
Solomon
I Kings 11:3,4
Peter
Matthew 26:70-74
bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/Torrey/ID/48

Backsliders
(From Nave’s Topical Bible)

General scriptures concerning
Leviticus 26:14-42; Deuteronomy 4:9; 8:11-14; 28:15-68; 29:18-28; 32:15-30; Joshua 24:20-27; I Kings 9:6-9; II Chronicles 15:2-4; Ezra 8:22; Job 34:26,27; Psalms 44:20,21; 73:27; 85:8; 125:5; Proverbs 2:17; 14:14; 24:16; 26:11; Jeremiah 17:13; Ezekiel 3:20; 18:24,26; 23:35; 33:12,13,18; Hosea 11:7,8; Jonah 2:4; Matthew 5:13; 12:45; 24:12; 26:31; Mark 4:7,15-19; 8:38; 9:50; Luke 9:62; 11:21-26; 17:32; John 6:67; 15:6; I Corinthians 10:1-13; II Corinthians 12:20,21; Galatians 1:6,7; 3:1; 4:9,11; 5:7; I Timothy 1:19; 5:15; 6:10,20,21; II Timothy 1:8; 2:12; 4:10; Hebrews 3:12,13; 4:1,11; 5:11,12; 6:4-8; 10:26-29,38,39; 11:14,15; 12:15; II Peter 1:9; 2:20,21; II John 1:9; Revelation 2:4,5,21; 3:2,3; 21:8

 

[MrWhy]

Maranatha:

Do you believe in the WWII Holocaust (Shoah)? Do you believe we landed a man on the moon?

The point is, people start rewriting history either for political reasons or superstitions, from almost the time it happens. It’s hard enough to convince some shortly after the event happens. It harder still once there has been 2,000 years of denial. Should we use the same standard of proof for the events in Palestine in the first century, as we use for all other history?

Often we should admit we don’t know what happened. It’s very difficult to get conclusive information about what occurred last month or last year. On a single situation we have on-site coverage, many reporters, scholars writing history, and special investigators working for years. We still have ongoing debates about who knew what when. We know something happened, and we have a general idea about what it was about, but in most cases specific accurate info is not available. To get accuracy, it looks like you would need a team of uninvolved non-participating observers documenting the event as it happened. What chance is there that any 2,000-year-old history is inerrant or infallible?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

There was always some in Isreal that remained faithful ( Rom 11 ).

I forget what the doctrine is called that relates to them.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Daniel Marsh:

There was always some in Isreal that remained faithful ( Rom 11 ).

I forget what the doctrine is called that relates to them.

Oh, I don’t deny that Israel always had SOME that remained faithful. So what? That hardly amounts to proof of a CHURCH which prefigures or is analogous to the NT Church and certainly no institution can be discerned in the OT that regarded itself as does the RCC.

Karl Rahner:
“before the church of Christ this absolute authority of a teaching office did not exist. The OT knew of no absolute and formal teaching authority which was recognized as such. Its ‘official’ representatives themselves could fall away from God, his revelation and his grace,” **Foundations of Christian Faith ** (Seabury 1990), p. 378.

“There was no infallible teaching authority—not even before the death of Christ—in the OT, in the sense of a permanent institution, which had this inerrant character. There were prophets every now and again. But there was no infallible Church,” **Inspiration in the Bible ** (Herder & Herder, 1961), p. 52.

No ‘official’ teaching office. No infallible declarations defining the Canon of Scripture. The believer relied on the Word of God as revealed by the Providence of God.

To bring this argument back to its point of origin:

The Bible is a public revelation, addressed to the common people (e.g. Exod 24:7; Deut 31:11; Neh 8:3; Jer 36:6; Lk 4:16; Acts 13:15; 15:21; Col 4:16; 1 Thes 5:27; 1 Tim 4:13; Rev 1:3-4), and adapted to popular understanding (2 Cor 1:13; Eph 3:4).

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[MrS]

Richard_Hurtz:

Karl Rahner:
“before the church of Christ this absolute authority of a teaching office did not exist. The OT knew of no absolute and formal teaching authority which was recognized as such. Its ‘official’ representatives themselves could fall away from God, his revelation and his grace,” **Foundations of Christian Faith ** (Seabury 1990), p. 378.

So what was Jesus referring to when He referenced “The Chair of Moses” ?

 

[Maranatha]

Richard_Hurtz:

Oh, I don’t deny that Israel always had SOME that remained faithful. So what? That hardly amounts to proof of a CHURCH which prefigures or is analogous to the NT Church and certainly no institution can be discerned in the OT that regarded itself as does the RCC.

Karl Rahner:
“before the church of Christ this absolute authority of a teaching office did not exist. The OT knew of no absolute and formal teaching authority which was recognized as such. Its ‘official’ representatives themselves could fall away from God, his revelation and his grace,” **Foundations of Christian Faith **(Seabury 1990), p. 378.

“There was no infallible teaching authority—not even before the death of Christ—in the OT, in the sense of a permanent institution, which had this inerrant character. There were prophets every now and again. But there was no infallible Church,” **Inspiration in the Bible **(Herder & Herder, 1961), p. 52.

No ‘official’ teaching office. No infallible declarations defining the Canon of Scripture. The believer relied on the Word of God as revealed by the Providence of God.

To bring this argument back to its point of origin:

The Bible is a public revelation, addressed to the common people (e.g. Exod 24:7; Deut 31:11; Neh 8:3; Jer 36:6; Lk 4:16; Acts 13:15; 15:21; Col 4:16; 1 Thes 5:27; 1 Tim 4:13; Rev 1:3-4), and adapted to popular understanding (2 Cor 1:13; Eph 3:4).

Peace to you,
Richard

The auotes you cite above are not accurate.

This is posted by Gosty from the thread Transforming the Catholic-Jewish Relationship.

The other point from Tractate Yoma is the use of Urim and Thurrim, the “Divine Lots”. They were objects of some sort (it’s up for a bit of debate on precisely what they were, but their use is agreed upon) that were used by the High Priest to determine, in pressing matters, an infallible “yes or no” answer from God. They were not for common use, and they were generally reserved for decisions that required absolute assurance. Following their advice led to resounding success, not following them led to failure, and asking poorly formed questions led to inconclusive answers. That is very similar to our Catholic concept of the infallibility of the Magisterium when it comes to Faith and Morals. We have very explicit limitations on when such matters are decided, what kind of matters are decided, and how they are expressed, but when they are they are considered irrevokable and infallibly guided by God Himself. God’s Divine protection will not allow the Pope to err in proclaiming Faith and Morals, just as God did not allow Urim and Thurrim to err in guiding Israel via the High Priest. Furthermore, it was not a power of the High Priest, not a mystical insight, but rather an infallible “attachment” to his office, quite literally as the Urim and Thurrim were a part of his sacred clothing. When the High Priest drew on Urim and Thurrim, his counsel came from God, not from man, just as the Pope, when speaking as the leader of all the faithful on matters of Faith and Morals, simply relates the irrevokable judgement of God, not his own personal view.

 

[Maranatha]

MrWhy:

Often we should admit we don’t know what happened. It’s very difficult to get conclusive information about what occurred last month or last year. On a single situation we have on-site coverage, many reporters, scholars writing history, and special investigators working for years. We still have ongoing debates about who knew what when. We know something happened, and we have a general idea about what it was about, but in most cases specific accurate info is not available. To get accuracy, it looks like you would need a team of uninvolved non-participating observers documenting the event as it happened.

Your requirement for “conclusive” information is unreasonable. We might as well close down all academic history departments and just admit we don’t’ know “with certainty” what has happened in the past.

What chance is there that any 2,000-year-old history is inerrant or infallible?

From post #4, we are not trying to prove the Bible is inerrant history. We are determining the historicity of the Catholic Church from the first century.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Maranatha:

The quotes you cite above are not accurate.

ghosty:

The other point from Tractate Yoma is the use of Urim and Thurrim, the “Divine Lots”. They were objects of some sort (it’s up for a bit of debate on precisely what they were, but their use is agreed upon) that were used by the High Priest to determine, in pressing matters, an infallible “yes or no” answer from God. They were not for common use, and they were generally reserved for decisions that required absolute assurance. Following their advice led to resounding success, not following them led to failure, and asking poorly formed questions led to inconclusive answers. That is very similar to our Catholic concept of the infallibility of the Magisterium when it comes to Faith and Morals. We have very explicit limitations on when such matters are decided, what kind of matters are decided, and how they are expressed, but when they are they are considered irrevokable and infallibly guided by God Himself. God’s Divine protection will not allow the Pope to err in proclaiming Faith and Morals, just as God did not allow Urim and Thurrim to err in guiding Israel via the High Priest. Furthermore, it was not a power of the High Priest, not a mystical insight, but rather an infallible “attachment” to his office, quite literally as the Urim and Thurrim were a part of his sacred clothing. When the High Priest drew on Urim and Thurrim, his counsel came from God, not from man, just as the Pope, when speaking as the leader of all the faithful on matters of Faith and Morals, simply relates the irrevokable judgement of God, not his own personal view.

This is very weak typology and a poor argument from analogy.

The Urim and Thurrim were physical objects, to my knowledge no such attachment of physical objects to the Pope’s “Infallibility” exists. Further, infallibility does not exist solely in the office of the Pope (the “high priest”), but in the rulings of Ecumenical Councils as well. There is no parallel use of the Urim and Thurrim by a group of “priests”.

Secondly, the issues settled with the use of the Urim and Thurrim were posed as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions, not opened ended theological pronouncements subject to ‘development’ over time.

Thirdly, these items were not just attached to the office of the High Priest but also to his garments - the lack of either the priest or the garments breaks the ‘synergy’.

Fourthly, these items were lost when the First Temple was destroyed and have never been recovered. If the Urim and Thurrim are analogous to the Charism of Infalliblity claimed by the RCC, do we anticipate the loss of that Charism as well?

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[MrWhy]

Maranatha:

Your requirement for “conclusive” information is unreasonable. We might as well close down all academic history departments and just admit we don’t’ know “with certainty” what has happened in the past.

Don’t think we want to close anything down if free speech is valued. The degree of certainty required would depend on the significance and impact the info would have on related action.

 

[Maranatha]

Richard_Hurtz:

This is very weak typology and a poor argument from analogy.

The Urim and Thurrim were physical objects, to my knowledge no such attachment of physical objects to the Pope’s “Infallibility” exists. Further, infallibility does not exist solely in the office of the Pope (the “high priest”), but in the rulings of Ecumenical Councils as well. There is no parallel use of the Urim and Thurrim by a group of “priests”.

Secondly, the issues settled with the use of the Urim and Thurrim were posed as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions, not opened ended theological pronouncements subject to ‘development’ over time.

Thirdly, these items were not just attached to the office of the High Priest but also to his garments - the lack of either the priest or the garments breaks the ‘synergy’.

Fourthly, these items were lost when the First Temple was destroyed and have never been recovered. If the Urim and Thurrim are analogous to the Charism of Infalliblity claimed by the RCC, do we anticipate the loss of that Charism as well?

Peace to you,
Richard

The physical rights under the Jewish law have been fulfilled through Christ and we should expect rights forshadowed in the OT to be different from the rights instituted after Christ.

As for loosing the Urim and Thurrim with the temple, we should remember that more then Jewish infallibility was lost to the Jews when the temple was destroyed. They lost the blood atonement for sins. This was also fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. We will not loose the redemption Christ gave us on the cross and we will not lose the Infallibility protection of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Maranatha]

MrWhy:

Don’t think we want to close anything down if free speech is valued. The degree of certainty required would depend on the significance and impact the info would have on related action.

Let’s look outside history to see, if elsewhere a sliding scale of reasonableness (relativism) should apply.

In a court of law, prosecutors are required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of a client. The level of reason is stable from one case tot he next. The seriousness of the case does not determine the level of certainty needed. Reasonable doubt is the standard whether the case is trespassing, assault or murder.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

Maranatha:

As for loosing the Urim and Thurrim with the temple, we should remember that more then Jewish infallibility was lost to the Jews when the temple was destroyed. They lost the blood atonement for sins. This was also fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. We will not loose the redemption Christ gave us on the cross and we will not lose the Infallibility protection of the Holy Spirit.

The Urim and Thurrim were lost (along with the Ark of the Covenant) when the FIRST temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, you’re talking about the destruction of the SECOND temple (70 AD).

Secondly, it is a matter of fact that Catholic theology maintains that individuals CAN lose their salvation - so I’m at a loss to understand your point about not losing the redemption that Christ bought on the cross.

I stand my by my earlier assertion - this is a very weak argument and poor typology.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

REMNANT
rem’-nant:

Remnant is the translation of yether, “what is left over” (Deuteronomy 3:11; 28:54; Joshua 12:4, etc.); of she’-ar, “the rest” (Ezra 3:8 the King James Version; Isaiah 10:20,21,22; 11:16, etc.; Zechariah 1:4); more frequently of she’-erith, “residue,” etc. (2 Kings 19:4,31; 2 Chronicles 34:9; Ezra 9:14; Isaiah 14:30, etc.). As the translation of the last-mentioned two words, “remnant” has a special significance in the prophecies of Isaiah, as denoting “a holy seed,” or spiritual kernel, of the nation which should survive impending judgment and become the germ of the people of God, being blessed of God and made a blessing (compare Micah 2:12; 4:7; 5:7,8; 7:18; also Zec 2:7; 3:13; Haggai 1:12,14; Zechariah 8:6; Joel 2:32). Paul, in Romans 9:27, quotes from Isaiah 10:22, “the remnant (kataleimma, “what is left over”] shall be saved”; compare also Romans 11:5 (where the word is leimma) with 2 Kings 19:4. Several other Hebrew words are less frequently translated “remnant”: 'ahar, “after”; yathar, “to be left over,” etc.; in the New Testament (the King James Version) we have also loipos, “left,” “remaining” (Matthew 22:6; Revelation 11:13, etc.).

For “remnant” the Revised Version (British and American) has “overhanging part” (Exodus 26:12), “rest” (Leviticus 14:18, etc.); on the other hand gives “remnant” for “posterity” (Genesis 45:7), for “rest” (Joshua 10:20; 1 Chronicles 4:43; Isaiah 10:19), for “residue” (Haggai 2:2; Zechariah 8:11), etc.

studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T7358

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

MrS:

So what was Jesus referring to when He referenced “The Chair of Moses” ?

Seat of Moses is the legal system of Judaism, nothing more.

Exodus 18

13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”

15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and laws.”

17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”

24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 **They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.
**
27 Then Moses sent his father-in-law on his way, and Jethro returned to his own country.