RM>1. Concerning the question of biblical inerrancy that arose in >connection with Hebrews 11:11 (Sarah's supposed seminal emission): >I was disappointed to see that even those who disagreed with Denis's >claim did say that yes, the Bible does contain errors. In my view, >human beings do not and cannot possess the means to detect errors in >the Bible. We can often, although not necessarily always, show that >a claimed error is not in fact an error....."
>SJ Perhaps I am being too sensitive, but if you refer to me, then you perhaps unintentionally misrepresent what I said? :-) I did not say that "the Bible does contain errors" but that it *may* contain errors.
>SJ For example, on or about 11 Dec 95, I replied to Denis Lamoureux Re: Creatio ex nihilo:
SJ> While I do believe there may be human errors in Scripture, I am >conscious that I make human errors too and therefore I must be careful >before I claim that something in the Bible is definitely an error.
>SJ and
SJ>I believe we should treat the Bible writers like any other >trustworthy witness - as innocent until *proven* guilty - and exhaust >every other reasonable possibility before we conclude they made a >mistake....
>SJand
SJ>Equally there is the ERROR of those who assume that a difficulty >"can only be the result of an error in the original!
>SJI do *not* claim that the Bible (as originally given) *does* contain errors, but equally I cannot prove that it *does not* contain error.
>SJNowhere AFAIK does the Bible actually say that it does not contain error: the words "infallible" and "inerrant" do not appear in the Bible, in respect of itself (the AV does contain in Acts 1:3 "To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs", but the NIV translates this as "convincing" and in any event it does not refer to the Bible itself).
>SJTherefore, I conclude that the doctrines of an "inerrant" and "infallibility", however well-intentioned, are not a "command of God" but rather a "tradition of men" (Mk 7:8), and I do not need to believe
>SJthem.
>SJMuch of the problem turns on what "error" means. Recently I wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------- SJ>The Bible...demonstrably does contain what could be claimed to be >"errors". For example, it could be claimed that the Bible teaches >that PI = 3 (1Ki 7:23; 2Chr 4:2). Other common claimed "errors" are: > >Mt 10:10 and Lk 9:3 where Jesus is quoted as saying not to take even a >"staff": > >"take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals OR A STAFF; >for the worker is worth his keep." (Mt 10:10); "Take nothing for the >journey--NO STAFF, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic." (Lk >9:3) > >yet Mk 6:8 where the instructions included taking a staff: "Take >nothing for the journey EXCEPT A STAFF--no bread, no bag, no money in >your belts." (emphasis mine) > >The above can be explained satisfactorily, but it is so complex that >that the doctrine "dies the death of a thousand qualifications". The >point is that the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant on minor details >to be substantially true. A lot of energy is spent by Christians >trying to prove the Bible in inerrant, when it is irrelevant. The >telephone book is inerrant, but does not save. --------------------------------------------------------
>SJ The 1Ki 7:23 2; Chr 4:2 PI=3 is a case of imprecision by modern standards, and it could be argued that God should have got it right, and it is a type of error of omission.
[deleted]
>SJ I know of no actual proven error in the Bible (as originally given), but if one were found, it would not shake my faith at all, unless it was: a) a lie; or b) materially affected a major doctrine. Indeed, even if all the claimed errors of the Bible were admitted, it would not materially affect even *one* major doctrine.
I guess my chief problem with what you wrote is your distinction between "major" doctrine" and "minor" error. I do not think that human beings have the means to screen out from the Bible the things that do not relate to its message. To say that there *may* be an error in the Bible is, I think, equivalent to saying that when the disciples had conversations with Jesus, that he would have said, "What I said yesterday was not exactly what I meant to say. That point I made about the ________ you may have thought to be a trivial matter. But what I meant was...."
You are correct when you say that we need to have a correct definition of error. We must--I believe I made this point before--take into account the universe of discourse. *Surely* we do not think the newspaper errs when it says, "Tomorrow the sun will *rise* at...." And we should not misunderstand when biblical authors recount the same incident differently. The Bible ought to be its own standard of truth: if one gospel writer recounts an incident which stands in direct contradiction to another account, let's assume that both are transmitting Truth--capitalized. But that doen's give *us* the right to point out that such-and-such is an error, that our science knows better, and all that. We don't have the same rights as did the biblical authors!
Steve, I have a strong hunch that you and I agree and that maybe what I have written above was not necessary. Anyway, thanks for your post and may the Lord bless your work!
Russ
--
e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421