The Authority Of Scripture

[Jac3510]

Jac, let's step away from the word 'flaw' for a moment or even any specific instances. It is my general understanding that scripture is God-inspired but written with human hands and influenced by human experiences. Given that, does this mean scripture must be perfect in all aspects and facets? Does it necessarily follow that if scripture is inerrant then it must also be perfect (not only in the message it conveys, but also in content, grammar, composition, punctuation, etc.etc.)

Of course it does, because such errors are just that--errors. If human imperfection can cause errors to creep into the grammar of a text, why can't it cause imperfection to creep into the details of a story? After all, human memory isn't any more perfect than human communication. And if small details in a story are possible, why not larger ones? In other words, if human beings are capable of making mistakes in transmitting God's message, how do you know which part is correct and which part is in error? Even parts that you declare, "Well, I see no faults here. This must be true!" is really, in that case, you believing what you WANT to believe.

Or, I can put the matter this way: suppose you come to the text with the possibility that it contains errors. You read a passage and decide whether or not it has a flaw, no matter how big or how small. Who, then, is in the position of authority? You are, because YOU are the one who decides whether or not this passage is or is not in error. But if YOU are in authority, then the Bible has no authority at all.

This is true even in human law. Why, after all, do we have judges? Because a person does something and is charged by the government with breaking a law. They, then, argue that they did NOT break the law, and it is up to the judge to interpret it to decide whether or not this is the case. You see, there has to be an authority other than ourselves. If this is true in human law, how much more true in divine law? And if we get to decide which parts of the Bible are right and which parts are in error, then there becomes NO standard by which we can judge.

This really is an all or nothing issue. Either the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, completely accurate in all its words, or it is just another human book filled with good advice that maybe contains a message from God, but that message is impossible to get to. You can say what you believe that message is, but you can never know, because what you take to be correct, another takes to be an error (if only on the basis of human faultiness).

[Byblos]

I can appreciate what you're saying and, In principal, do not disagree with it. I do wonder, however, if that's the case, what was the need for prophets, apostles, written scripture to begin with? If God dictated every word, why did He choose to do so through human writers as opposed to miraculously creating scripture Himself just as He did with the 10 commandments?

Second, an argument can also be made that if scripture is claimed to be perfect and the slightest imperfection is found (however infinitesimal and even if it's a matter of interpretation), then scripture is invalidated in its entirety. So we are then put in a position to constantly defend this perfection even with seemingly unrelated matters to faith and salvation. Take for example the mustard seed; now we all know that when scripture states that it's the smallest of all seeds, it is being used symbolically. The fact that there exist other smaller seeds has no bearing on the meaning of the story or its inerrancy for that matter. Put that in the perfection perspective, however, and now naysayers have an argument that scripture is not perfect. These are the types of nuances I was talking about that were most likely influenced by human judgment for, after all, God surely knew that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed.

Third, one would think if scripture was not influenced by the writers' humanness in any way, that it would be a lot clearer in its instructional manuals so-to-speak for faith and salvation and we wouldn't have the divisions and disagreements we have today in Christendom.

And by the way, in my case I do have a supreme court of sorts I defer to in such matters. But that, of course, is beside the point .

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good answer, Byblos.

So, I know that you know that the word of God is errorless in its message since the scriptures are breathed out by God. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

FL

[zoegirl]

(I am taking a break from my planning, although I have yet to have planned much with the ridiculous amoiunt of e-mailing and department stuff and worrying and,.,ugh, my brain just glazed over and more meetings tomorrow....oh joy)

Well-put, Byblos,

although I wonder if we aren't mixing apples and oranges. I doubt many of us would consider the mustard seed example a flaw, per se, but another example of humanity not examing scripture in light of the setting and the understanding of the times. I was reading your example and thinking to myself "Well, wait, that's not really a flaw"

You do bring up that interesting point , however, that God did not reveal everyhthing in scripture, and indeed, it could be said that He allowed mankind's ignorance in matters to remain without giving up on the meaning of the message.

And perhaps, then, it's more of a matter of clarity in our conveying what innerrant means, as well as proper UNDERSTANdING. It's passages like these that get us into trouble when we are not clear in our use and application of scripture...atheist then love to use silly examples like this to suposedly poke holes into scripture..."see, they say their scripture is God-breathed, well certainly no God in His right mind would allow this mistake to be put down on paper"

Anyway, my ramblings, forgive their probable fuzziness

[Jac3510]

Byblos,

Are you REALLY going to sit here and start giving me the standard non-Christian proofs that the Bible either contradicts itself or that it contradicts reality? Concerning the mustard seed example, it's been long ago and popularly pointed out that the word should not be translated "smallest seed" (or "smaller than all other seeds) but rather "a smaller seed" (or "a very small seed"). But, so you know that I'm not coming up with this on my own:

• Sometimes the comparative adjective is used with an elative sense. That is, the quality expressed by the adjective is intensified, but it is not making a comparison (e.g., ho ischeroteros aner might mean "the very strong man" rather than "the stronger man"). The elative sense in classical Greek was normally reserved for the superlative form, but in Koine the comparative has encroached on the superlative's domain. (Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 300)

. He then goes on to discuss Matt 13:32/Mark 4:31:

• Ho mikroteron men estin panton ton spermaton: "[the mustard seed . . .] which is smaller than all seeds or perhaps which is very small among all the seeds[/i]
  
  The firs translation given for this text treats the adj. in its comparative sense, while the second translation treats it in an elative sense. This text has created a theological difficulty for some American evangelicals: Jesus seems to be declaring the mustard seed to be smaller than all other seeds when, in fact, it is not the smallest (the wild orchid is smaller). A typical resolution is that the adj. is elative. The justification for taking it is twofold: (1) As has already been established, the comparative adj. occasionally had the elative sense in the NT, and (2) the gen. panton ton spermaton, rather than being a gen. of comparison, might mean "among . . .," as it does in Matt 23:11, John 8:7, Acts 19:35, 1 Cor 2:11, Gal 2:15, etc. (301)

But even outside of that, Wallace himself goes on to offer three other perfectly acceptable explanations. (1) The word "seed" is used exclusively of sown seeds, and the mustard seed IS the smallest sown seed; (2) within the worldview of Palestinians, the mustard seed WAS the smallest seed; and (3) the statement was proverbial, and thus was used for rhetorical effect.

Now, outside of that, I didn't say I advocated a divine dictation theory. I said that there can be NO ERRORS. If God is capable of keeping me from making a theological mistake if I am writing Scripture, and if He can do so without dictating to me, then why can't He keep me from making historical or grammatical mistakes? Again, and error is an error.

Regarding the point about it being clearer if God didn't allow errors, that has two problems. First, it assumes that God's message was muddled by the biblical writers. You can't really believe that God would let His message get muddled. To what extent was that allowed to happen? Perhaps the clearest of all statements in the Bible on salvation, John 3:16, is actually muddled because John didn't get everything in there? Secondly, it confuses something being muddled with something being in error.

The point stands. Either the Bible is absolutely perfect or it is just another human book that has no authority. There is no middle ground on this. How are we to know which parts are right and which parts are wrong? You can't even appeal to your Church to tell you, because that makes the Church MORE AUTHORITATIVE than Scripture, which violates Heb 1:1. You can't say you believe in inerrancy and say you believe the Bible has flaws. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Either the Bible is absolutely perfect or it is just another human book that has no authority.

The Bible is absolutely perfect in its message; however, human copyists are not and they have occasionally let errors slip in. An example from my French copy of the Jerusalem Bible is 2 Chronicles 22:2,

Il avait quarante-deux ans í  son aví¨nement et il régna un an í  Jérusalem. in English, He was forty-two years old at his [coronation] and he reigned one year in Jerusalem (my translation.)

My NIV translation has corrected this copyist error and renders the same passage,

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year.

Regarding 2 ch 22:2, a footnote goes on to state that Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 2 Kings 8:26); Hebrew forty-two.

Had Ahaziah been 42, he would have been older than his father. Even so, my copy of the Jerusalem Bible and Hebrew Bibles state his age as 42, with a footnote indicating it is an error and that his actual age is 22 according to 2 Ki 8:26.

To recap, God's Word is absolutely perfect. Minor transcription errors have crept in here and there but they do not in any way affect the message.

FL

[Jac3510]

FL, the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility are traditionally understood--and I agree--to refer only the autographs. My concern is that Byblos is allowing flaws in the originals.

[Byblos]

Byblos,

Are you REALLY going to sit here and start giving me the standard non-Christian proofs that the Bible either contradicts itself or that it contradicts reality?

Jac, you're getting too much ahead of yourself (and me). I am certainly not saying there are contradictions in scripture whether with itself or with reality or any other medium for that matter. It may have been a mistake on my part to hone in on the word 'flawless' whereas a more appropriate term would have been 'human-influenced'. Once again, I am NOT saying there are errors nor contradictions. And if I am to call scripture perfect it is with the understanding that it is human-influenced; otherwise the standard of proof becomes much too legalistic and cumbersome, and the message gets lost in the translation.

Concerning the mustard seed example, it's been long ago and popularly pointed out that the word should not be translated "smallest seed" (or "smaller than all other seeds) but rather "a smaller seed" (or "a very small seed"). But, so you know that I'm not coming up with this on my own:

• Sometimes the comparative adjective is used with an elative sense. That is, the quality expressed by the adjective is intensified, but it is not making a comparison (e.g., ho ischeroteros aner might mean "the very strong man" rather than "the stronger man"). The elative sense in classical Greek was normally reserved for the superlative form, but in Koine the comparative has encroached on the superlative's domain. (Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 300)

. He then goes on to discuss Matt 13:32/Mark 4:31:

• Ho mikroteron men estin panton ton spermaton: "[the mustard seed . . .] which is smaller than all seeds or perhaps which is very small among all the seeds[/i]
  
  The firs translation given for this text treats the adj. in its comparative sense, while the second translation treats it in an elative sense. This text has created a theological difficulty for some American evangelicals: Jesus seems to be declaring the mustard seed to be smaller than all other seeds when, in fact, it is not the smallest (the wild orchid is smaller). A typical resolution is that the adj. is elative. The justification for taking it is twofold: (1) As has already been established, the comparative adj. occasionally had the elative sense in the NT, and (2) the gen. panton ton spermaton, rather than being a gen. of comparison, might mean "among . . .," as it does in Matt 23:11, John 8:7, Acts 19:35, 1 Cor 2:11, Gal 2:15, etc. (301)

But even outside of that, Wallace himself goes on to offer three other perfectly acceptable explanations. (1) The word "seed" is used exclusively of sown seeds, and the mustard seed IS the smallest sown seed; (2) within the worldview of Palestinians, the mustard seed WAS the smallest seed; and (3) the statement was proverbial, and thus was used for rhetorical effect.

You've just effectively proven my point, Jac. The mustard seed is the perfect example of that human-influence, the fact that within the confines of the Palestinian world view of the time, the mustard seed was in fact the smallest seed. Human influence drove that point, and it should be taken within that prismic view. There is no error, there is no contradiction, just the fact that God inspired the writer to convey a message from his human point of view. That is all I am trying to say. It humanizes scripture for, after all, God sent his Word to become flesh so we can relate to Him, physically. To elevate scripture above the very salvation method by whom God chose to redeem us is to make that redemption process ineffectual, IMHO.

Now, outside of that, I didn't say I advocated a divine dictation theory. I said that there can be NO ERRORS. If God is capable of keeping me from making a theological mistake if I am writing Scripture, and if He can do so without dictating to me, then why can't He keep me from making historical or grammatical mistakes? Again, and error is an error.

I agree with you. I didn't say there were errors either (my reference to the word 'flawless' notwithstanding).

Regarding the point about it being clearer if God didn't allow errors, that has two problems. First, it assumes that God's message was muddled by the biblical writers. You can't really believe that God would let His message get muddled. To what extent was that allowed to happen? Perhaps the clearest of all statements in the Bible on salvation, John 3:16, is actually muddled because John didn't get everything in there? Secondly, it confuses something being muddled with something being in error.

No, it does not assume the message is muddled. It just humanizes it the same way His Word was humanized.

The point stands. Either the Bible is absolutely perfect or it is just another human book that has no authority. There is no middle ground on this. How are we to know which parts are right and which parts are wrong? You can't even appeal to your Church to tell you, because that makes the Church MORE AUTHORITATIVE than Scripture, which violates Heb 1:1. You can't say you believe in inerrancy and say you believe the Bible has flaws. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

I don't have a problem stating scripture is perfect, just as long as we don't lose sight of the fact that it is human-influenced.

As for my appeal to the church, I totally disagree with you on that (did you really expect otherwise?). The church has INTERPRETIVE authority, no more and no less. That does not make it MORE AUTHORITATIVE than scripture because if that's the case, then every other private interpretation in effect becomes MORE AUTHORITATIVE than scripture. But this, of course, is not a subject I wish to get into here.

[Jac3510]

Jac, you're getting too much ahead of yourself (and me). I am certainly not saying there are contradictions in scripture whether with itself or with reality or any other medium for that matter. It may have been a mistake on my part to hone in on the word 'flawless' whereas a more appropriate term would have been 'human-influenced'. Once again, I am NOT saying there are errors nor contradictions. And if I am to call scripture perfect it is with the understanding that it is human-influenced; otherwise the standard of proof becomes much too legalistic and cumbersome, and the message gets lost in the translation.

I asked only because your use of the mustard seed question is one of the talking points tht non-Christians use to discredit the Bible. More on the "human-influenced" stuff below.

You've just effectively proven my point, Jac. The mustard seed is the perfect example of that human-influence, the fact that within the confines of the Palestinian world view of the time, the mustard seed was in fact the smallest seed. Human influence drove that point, and it should be taken within that prismic view. There is no error, there is no contradiction, just the fact that God inspired the writer to convey a message from his human point of view. That is all I am trying to say. It humanizes scripture for, after all, God sent his Word to become flesh so we can relate to Him, physically. To elevate scripture above the very salvation method by whom God chose to redeem us is to make that redemption process ineffectual, IMHO.

See, I have a serious problem with this. I (or, rather, Wallace), gave four possible ways to understand the text, and only one of them justified an error based on worldview. Why did you pick that one? Personally, I think that is the least likely of all four, because, if it is true, then we have an errant Bible.

Suppose the Palestinian world-view thought that the world was flat. And supposed Paul said as much, "For just as the world is flat and holds all things on its surface, so also we are held by blah blah blah" or whatever. That would obviously be a flaw, and no amount of appealing the the Jewish worldview would solve the problem. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Jews DID think that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. If the Bible says so because they Jews thought so, then the Bible, along with the Jews, is wrong.

But if the Bible can be wrong to the extent its worldview can be wrong, what else can it be wrong about? Everything, potentially. And that's the problem I have with the "human-influence" view. I'm not at all saying that the authors were robots. They all expressed the truths God wanted for them to express in their own words by their own personalities and from the vantage point of their own experiences. But in doing so, they made no errors.

We can leave the stuff about the Catholic Church's interpretative authority for another time. It's obviously just a side issue, anyway. In any case, I still hold to my main point: either the Bible is 100%, completely and totally error free in every possible sense of the word (with reference, of course, to the autographs), or it is errant and thus has flaws.

fdit: I don't want to or mean to come across harsh, so I hope I'm not. My stance is hardline, yes. Uncompromising, abosolutely. Harsh, I hope not.

[Byblos]

Agggh! I hate the preview button. I had typed a response and wanted to preview it before posting; of course I ended up forgetting to actually post. Any way, here's the condensed version:

You've just effectively proven my point, Jac. The mustard seed is the perfect example of that human-influence, the fact that within the confines of the Palestinian world view of the time, the mustard seed was in fact the smallest seed. Human influence drove that point, and it should be taken within that prismic view. There is no error, there is no contradiction, just the fact that God inspired the writer to convey a message from his human point of view. That is all I am trying to say. It humanizes scripture for, after all, God sent his Word to become flesh so we can relate to Him, physically. To elevate scripture above the very salvation method by whom God chose to redeem us is to make that redemption process ineffectual, IMHO.

See, I have a serious problem with this. I (or, rather, Wallace), gave four possible ways to understand the text, and only one of them justified an error based on worldview.

Why? Why is it that if scripture is influenced by the writer's perspective that it necessarily follow that it is erroneous? First, I don't believe Wallace listed it BECAUSE it justifies an error based on world view. I think he listed it precisely because it is another way of reading scripture without claiming it is contradictory. You, yourself have used this argument numerous times, that scripture must be understood not only from the point of view of the time in which it was written but also, and more importantly, to whom it was being addressed.

Why did you pick that one? Personally, I think that is the least likely of all four, because, if it is true, then we have an errant Bible.

Obviously I picked it because it illustrates my point and the others don't. It wasn't trickery by omission, if that's what you mean.

Suppose the Palestinian world-view thought that the world was flat. And supposed Paul said as much, "For just as the world is flat and holds all things on its surface, so also we are held by blah blah blah" or whatever. That would obviously be a flaw, and no amount of appealing the the Jewish worldview would solve the problem. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Jews DID think that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. If the Bible says so because they Jews thought so, then the Bible, along with the Jews, is wrong.

But if the Bible can be wrong to the extent its worldview can be wrong, what else can it be wrong about? Everything, potentially. And that's the problem I have with the "human-influence" view. I'm not at all saying that the authors were robots. They all expressed the truths God wanted for them to express in their own words by their own personalities and from the vantage point of their own experiences. But in doing so, they made no errors.

And I'm not claiming they did make errors, just that the writers' and theirs audiences' perspectives must also be taken into consideration.

I still hold to my main point: either the Bible is 100%, completely and totally error free in every possible sense of the word (with reference, of course, to the autographs), or it is errant and thus has flaws.

I don't disagree.

fdit: I don't want to or mean to come across harsh, so I hope I'm not. My stance is hardline, yes. Uncompromising, abosolutely. Harsh, I hope not.

You never have to worry about that with me, Jac. I'll let you know when you're being harsh.

[Gman]

I would side with Byblos on this one especially when it gets to the different translations of the Bible. Another popular disputed text comes from Mark 16:9-20. These verses seem to be omitted from the original texts...

There is no need to panic however about the Bible's authority. Although things may get translated incorrectly or possibly added in, it is still God's word. I'm aware of these things but it certainly hasn't swayed my beliefs...

[obsolete]

I would side with Byblos on this one especially when it gets to the different translations of the Bible. Another popular disputed text comes from Mark 16:9-20. These verses seem to be omitted from the original texts...

There is no need to panic however about the Bible's authority. Although things may get translated incorrectly or possibly added in, it is still God's word. I'm aware of these things but it certainly hasn't swayed my beliefs...

I don't see how it should sway a person away from their belief. Jesus is still the way the truth and the light. Jesus still died for our sins. Jesus is still going to come back.

[Gman]

I don't see how it should sway a person away from their belief. Jesus is still the way the truth and the light. Jesus still died for our sins. Jesus is still going to come back.

The way I look at it, if God's word is going to get twisted it will always be by man, not God.

[obsolete]

I don't see how it should sway a person away from their belief. Jesus is still the way the truth and the light. Jesus still died for our sins. Jesus is still going to come back.

The way I look at it, if God's word is going to get twisted it will always be by man, not God.

I agree with you completely on this point. There have been too many times when a person has twisted scripture for their personal gain.

[MarkyMark7]

As for some errors (or flaws:-) ) in the scriptures you must understand thatthe Bible is originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In it's original form, the Bible is absolutely flawless, perfect, right, and just in everything it says. When it is translated, some things are distorted. However, we have almost perfect translations such as NIV and NASB to use. There are only two translation errors in NIV that I know of, and i'll post them here in a few days when I get time.
Also, scripture is God-breathed...it's not like Paul was just thinking about God when he wrote scripture. The Holy Spirit was actively writing it through him.