How does one know that the Bible is inerrant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daniel_Marsh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
Let’s see what we have so far:
  1. A fallible yet authoritative OT magesterium.
  2. Though fallible and hypocritical still taught with “Divine direction”.
  3. Though fallible, Jesus had no problem with their teaching, just their actions.
  4. This authoritative body could not discern nor define Scripture, was fallible, was hypocritical yet could still “guide Israel”.
Pardon my saying so, but you’ve just undercut the “necessity” for an Infallible Magesterium.

Be that as it may, let’s take it another step; “How did the OT believer apprehend the fact that he should be in obedience to the Sanhedrin or OT teaching authority?”

Peace to you,
Richard
Click to expand...
To answer your question. The Jewish priests position was an hereditary position. All descendents of Aaron (brother of Moses), the entire tribe of Levites (technically a separate tribe of Israel from the Jews) were explicitly given authority by God through Moses.
jewfaq.org/rabbi.htm

By the time of Jesus, there were constant disagreements about teaching authority. Historical proof of you legitimate linage was critical - similar to the historical proof for the Church teaching authority needed today. This became difficult after the first destruction of Temple and the exile to Babylon.
newadvent.org/cathen/12407b.htm

During the time of Jesus there were many Jewish sects, like the Essenes, that did not accept the Pharisees and Saduccies control over the Temple because they were installed by political powers. The Pharisees had political supported of the Romans. One group that dissented from the Temple control of the Pharisees was the sect that hid the Dead Sea Scrolls.
usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/educational_site/dead_sea_scrolls/discovery.shtml

Obviously, as a Catholic, I disagree with your analysis above. If God gave authority through heredity to the Levites, He can give, if He so chose, authority through Apostolic succession. I think the state of Israel during the time of Jesus proves the wisdom and necessity of the gift of infallibility.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
To answer your question. The Jewish priests position was an hereditary position. All descendents of Aaron (brother of Moses), the entire tribe of Levites (technically a separate tribe of Israel from the Jews) were explicitly given authority by God through Moses.
jewfaq.org/rabbi.htm
Click to expand...
Actually this does not answer the question.

Again, the question is “How did the OT believer know that he should be in obedience to the Sanhedrin or OT teaching authority?”

The Aaronic priestly class tended to the rituals surrounding the Temple. They were not “Israel’s teacher”. The quote from you above alludes to an hereditary position set up by God through Moses. How did the OT believer know that that position was set up by God?

You’re almost there…

Peace,
Richard
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Is Josephus’ work not a history text of a Jew from the first century? Historians seems to think so and they cite him on many number of things pertaining to Jewish History.
Click to expand...
Of course this is a valuable source. However, most historians use extreme caution when reading Josephus because he is known to be very prone to exageration in his accounts. Historians also generally remove the obvious “chrisianizing” comments inserted by later copiests into his brief mention of Jesus. No historian would ever say that these are exactly true accounts solely because someone wrote them in the past. And I have trouble believing the accounts of the resurrection solely based on their existence in one set of related documents which were written by uniformally biased authors. It always comes down to faith. When I get on a plane, I have no way of knowing that all the hundreds of critical preparations have been done correctly even if there is a document I can read that says they were but I have faith that they were based on experience
You may not like what he recorded as it might not sit well with your “Jesus Seminar” viewpoint, but to discount say that this is not a historical account is absurd.
Click to expand...
I agree that your general dictionary definition of “history” may be sufficient for some. As you said, it comprises all records of events in the past, regardless of their source or evidence, or verifiability, etc. I do not agree that this definition would ever be used in a rigorous academic pursuit. There are clear well-defined standards and tests scholarly historians use in determining the historicity of events and these rules and guidelines are far more serious and rigorous than the generic dictionary definition. I prefer those types of analysis over taking the route you seem to choose.

So there’s history and then there’s History. Please don’t try to convince me that everything written in the past is given equal value by historians.

You must also believe that everything in the Book of Mormon and the Koran is historical fact - they relate events in the past just like the gospels… Or maybe your faith is what determines what you believe…that’s all I’m saying.
or the eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus in the Bible.
Click to expand...
You keep using this “eyewitness” term as if it is established fact that the authors were on the spot reporters - even the authors state that there were times no one was present. There is certainly zero agreement as to when and by whom the gospels were written.
That would make much sense coming from you. But to expect us to believe you have any credibility to tell us what is and is not history is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your opinion - it just doesn’t work for me. Maybe later in my journey it will. Or maybe it is just all semantics.
 

In his essay “Historicism” C.S.Lewis distinguishes no fewer than six meanings for the concept of history​

In a discussion of the word in the introduction to his translation of the History of the Kings of Britain (Thompson’s translation of 1718 is used here), Lewis Thorpe remarks upon the variety of uses to which the word has been put. If memory serves, he goes back to the meaning it had in Herodotus, the title of whose Historiae could be rendered Researches. The *Estoire del Saint Graal *is not a history in the modern sense, but a chivalric romance.

Academic history today is not the same kind of writing as the of Gregory of ToursHistory of the Franks, or as the work of Herodotus, or as the campaign annals of the Assyrian kings - but all are valuable as sources for knowledge of “what happened”.

The Abraham saga in Genesis is not unhistorical because it is a saga - several Norse sagas are valuable as historical sources, such as the saga of Harald Hardrada. That Harald Hardrada is solidly historical does not ensure that Abraham is - but the literary genre is not what causes the problems. Some of the writing in the Bible might be more correctly called pseudo-historical or quasi-historical or traditionary. ##
 
Some follow-up thoughts on my previous comments:

One point is that while insiders and outsiders may read the same stories, they will use very different standards in evaluating their historical reliability. Imagine that another religion had a story about how God had worked mighty miracles that demonstrated the truth of that religion. Imagine also that there were several versions of this story and that these versions had numerous discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Wouldn’t you, a Christian and thus an outsider to this religion, point to those disparities as evidence for the unreliability of these stories? People are naturally more charitably inclined to their own stories than they are to those of outsiders.

Apologists treat these gospel stories as literal accounts of what really happened. These are stories about how faith in the resurrection got started: the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was raised because some of them had actually seen him in his physical body after his death. Apologists argue that if people today properly understand these stories, they will conclude that Jesus was physically raised from the dead, and from this they will conclude that Jesus is God.

The Empty Tomb…

Try to see the situation from a Jewish perspective. Matt 28:11-15 reflects Matthew’s bitter animosity toward the Jewish leaders, to whom he here imputes corrupt and deceitful motives. But if we step back from Matthew’s extremely one-sided perspective, we realize that the only thing that most Jews knew about the situation was that followers of Jesus *claimed *that he had risen from the dead.

To get some idea of how this must have sounded to Jews of the time, imagine how we would respond to reports by some members of a cult that their recently deceased leader (whom they had buried) had risen. Their reports that his grave was empty would hardly persuade many. Even if it was confirmed that the grave where they claim he was buried was empty, what would that prove? Nothing. We would conclude either that they had removed the body or that he was never buried there in the first place. Suppose they told stories of seeing angels at the empty grave or of the grave being opened by an earthquake. Suppose they claimed that our leaders were involved in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the resurrection of their master. Suppose they told of having seen him alive, of having spoken and eaten with him. And (though I can’t imagine how this would come about in our society) suppose that some of these witnesses were willing to die for their belief in their leader.

What would we make of such people and their belief in their “messiah”? Probably something similar to what ancient people made of the earliest Christians. (Just ask yourself what it would take to convince you that this cult leader had truly risen from the dead???)

Empty tombs don’t prove anything, except to insiders. Nor do reports of appearances of risen leaders. In the gospels the risen Jesus appears only to those who already believe in him. Those who see him after his resurrection are those who followed him during his lifetime. John’s gospel originally ended with a blessing for those who believe in Jesus without needing to see him firsthand. John’s implication is that it takes little faith to believe when one has seen the risen Lord in person. Matthew, however, does not agree. At the very end of Matthew’s gospel is a fascinating and unexpected statement. He reports that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts. Just before Jesus sent forth the Eleven with the Great Commission, they prostrated themselves before Jesus, “but some doubted” (28:17). This gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. Matthew’s abrupt comment comes as a complete surprise and its precise meaning is puzzling. But this much at least is clear: Whatever else the gospels may teach about the resurrection, faith in the risen Jesus requires more than stories about him, no matter how convincing these stories may be to some insiders.
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
Let’s see what we have so far:
  1. A fallible yet authoritative OT magesterium.
    {quote]
    Yep.
  2. Though fallible and hypocritical still taught with “Divine direction”.
Click to expand...
Yep. There were prophets and priests, tribal heads and leaders of nations who taught with Divine direction. King David, for example, taught with Divine authority, yet sinned gravely. There were also many false prophets and heretical priests.
  1. Though fallible, Jesus had no problem with their teaching, just their actions.
Click to expand...
Not what I said. Yet, Jesus told his disciples explicitly,

Matt 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

Thus they were an authentic authority over the people of God. Jesus certainly had problems with what they were teaching, but it is equally true that he held that some of what they were teaching came from God.
  1. This authoritative body could not discern nor define Scripture, was fallible, was hypocritical yet could still “guide Israel”.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that the could not discern Scripture, I said that they in fact did not define the canon of the OT.

Furthermore, this is taught by St. Paul, Roman ch. 13 of authority:

Rom 13:1-2 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

St. Paul is not speaking of only infallible authority here, but all those lawful governers of souls, who have been insituted by God.
Pardon my saying so, but you’ve just undercut the “necessity” for an Infallible Magesterium.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that the dogma derives from absolute necessity? It doesn’t. Instead, the doctrine derives from Divine revelation. You misunderstand Catholic teaching on the “necessity” of certain gifts from God. For example, St. Thomas teaches that the Incarnation was “necessary” for the restoration of human nature, yet not in the absolute sense, but in the sense that it is “most fitting.” Observe,

St. Thomas Aquinas on the different senses of “necessity”…
A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): “We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery.” (*Summa Theologica, *III, 1, 2)
Click to expand...
The gift of infallibility was not a gift of absolute necessity, but was necessary as a “most fitting way of healing our misery.” It comes from Divine Revelation, not arguments from absolute necessity.
Be that as it may, let’s take it another step; “How did the OT believer apprehend the fact that he should be in obedience to the Sanhedrin or OT teaching authority?”
Click to expand...
I think there are many examples in the OT Scripture and oral tradition which taught that when the people disregarded the teachings of the prophets, bad thing happened. Those OT protestors of Divine authority like Korah being swalled up by the earth was a Divine reminder to the same (cf. Num 16).
 
All scripture is inspired by God
is beneficial for reproving, for
teaching and for setting things straight.

Those are words that are in the Bible. We can trust God’s
word, the Holy Bible.
 
40.png
Marilena:
All scripture is inspired by God
is beneficial for reproving, for
teaching and for setting things straight.

Those are words that are in the Bible. We can trust God’s
word, the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...
The Koran and book of Mormon say much the same thing. Do you accept them as well?
 
40.png
Maranatha:
The Koran and book of Mormon say much the same thing. Do you accept them as well?
Click to expand...
Sorry Maranatha, Iam NOT familair with the Q’uran, nor am I
familiar with the Book of Mormon. Only The DRV, the King
James Version, the NWT, The Gideon Bbile, and the American
Standard Version of the Bible. So sorry to disappoint you, but
Iam a Catholic. I’d never read those books, and never will.
Iam a Traditional Catholic, and that’s all folks.
 
40.png
Marilena:
Sorry Maranatha, Iam NOT familair with the Q’uran, nor am I
familiar with the Book of Mormon. Only The DRV, the King
James Version, the NWT, The Gideon Bbile, and the American
Standard Version of the Bible. So sorry to disappoint you, but
Iam a Catholic. I’d never read those books, and never will.
Iam a Traditional Catholic, and that’s all folks.
Click to expand...
Marilena,

I admire your gift of faith. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will clear away impediments to the faith for some who have a hyper-rationalistic view. - Cheers.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
Marilena,

I admire your gift of faith. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will clear away impediments to the faith for some who have a hyper-rationalistic view. - Cheers.
Click to expand...
Cheers to you too :o
 
40.png
Maranatha:
The Koran and book of Mormon say much the same thing. Do you accept them as well?
Click to expand...
Hi Maranatha, where does the Koran and BOM say the say thing as the New Testament verse quoted?

Hi Marilena, what is the DRV?

thanks to both
 
Daniel Marsh:
Hi Maranatha, where does the Koran and BOM say the say thing as the New Testament verse quoted?

Hi Marilena, what is the DRV?

thanks to both
Click to expand...
The DRV is The Douay-Rheims Version. Its a Catholic Bible.
 
Daniel, are you interested in Catholicism? Are you any particular
belief? If so, do you mind outlining for us what you believe? I know it
seems nosey, but may I know? Thank you. Also, did you look up those scriptures I posted for you on the Trinity?
 
Trying to understand what the Scriptures say reading only the English translations is like repairing a 747 Jumbo Jet with a Volkswagon manual…it can’t be done.
The Scriptures were given to the world by the Hebrew people in their language. There are time that words can not be translated and retain their meaning.
Like the word DEBAR. Or for that matter the Hebrew Name of the Creator.
His Name is (YHWH) or Yahweh. His Son’s Name is Yahshua which means Yahweh’s Salvation in Hebrew. Every time this Name is spoken, read, or written it still brings glory to the heavenly Father Whose Name alone is YAHWEH. The statement in Yahchanan ( John ) 5:43 takes on a whole new meaning when we see what He said in that verse. He really did come in His Fathers Name. So you can say that the Scriptures are inerrant but the Bible which is a translation of the Scriptures is not.

BB
 
40.png
BillyBayou613:
Trying to understand what the Scriptures say reading only the English translations is like repairing a 747 Jumbo Jet with a Volkswagon manual…it can’t be done.
The Scriptures were given to the world by the Hebrew people in their language. There are time that words can not be translated and retain their meaning.
Like the word DEBAR. Or for that matter the Hebrew Name of the Creator.
His Name is (YHWH) or Yahweh. His Son’s Name is Yahshua which means Yahweh’s Salvation in Hebrew. Every time this Name is spoken, read, or written it still brings glory to the heavenly Father Whose Name alone is YAHWEH. The statement in Yahchanan ( John ) 5:43 takes on a whole new meaning when we see what He said in that verse. He really did come in His Fathers Name. So you can say that the Scriptures are inerrant but the Bible which is a translation of the Scriptures is not.

BB
Click to expand...
When were the books of the New testament ever in Hebrew? You think Paul wrote to the Romans in Hebrew??
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
First of all, the Sanhedrin was not an ecclesial body, but a judicial and legislative body made up of experts in the Torah.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. The ecclesiastical governance was by and through the Sanhedrin.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I think there are many examples in the OT Scripture and oral tradition which taught that when the people disregarded the teachings of the prophets, bad thing happened. Those OT protestors of Divine authority like Korah being swalled up by the earth was a Divine reminder to the same (cf. Num 16).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply.

You have made the assertion that there are examples in both the OT Scriptures AND in oral tradition. I see that you have cited an example from Scripture, but not from oral tradition. Do you have an example from oral tradtion that speaks to how the Israelites could recognize the Authority to which they were to be in obedience?

Thanks,
Richard
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top