Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
Jane,

Would you have any difficulty with a Shakespeare anthology in determining that Shakespeare was the author.
Well, I am a philologist, so the first task would be to analyze the separate texts for telltale signs of authorship: if they've all been written by the same person, it'll show - and indeed, it does. There are some scholarly debates as to whether Bill Shakespeare wasn't just a cover for somebody else (Philipp Marlowe, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, etc.), but one thing's for certain: these texts *were* written by a single author.
The same cannot be said about the Bible - and the Bible never disguises that fact. Its separate books bear the names of those people who (in some cases only supposedly) wrote them - both in the New and in the Old Testament. It doesn't claim that God wrote the psalms - David did. It doesn't claim that God wrote the gospel of Luke - the greek physician of that name did, etc.
It does not collect the texts of a single author - it collects texts written by very different people with very different perspectives and theologies, composed over a period of a thousand years. And it shows. No philologist would ever conclude that, say, the Song of Songs was written by the same person as Ecclesiastes.

You state: 'That the books of the Bible do not claim to represent God's words (except for passages that explicitly state: "Thus says the LORD")? Again, the text itself suffices'. Do Shakespeare's works have written through them, 'thus says Shakespeare', to affirm that Shakespeare is the author? Is think not.
Putting "by William Shakespeare" on the cover/under the title suffices for that (at first glance). The Bible does not even try to make that claim in relation to God.

You state: 'Or maybe that the Pauline epistle in question does not make the claim that the whole anthology is inerrant? For that, you only need to do one thing: read the epistle in its historical context. For starters, the New Testament did not exist at that point. Zilch. Zip. Nada'. I presume you are referring to 2 Tim 3:16, 'All Scripture'. If you did your homework on this text, you would discover that this verse is referring primarily, but not exclusively, to the OT Scriptures. Here are a couple examples:
  1. William Hendriksen: 'All scripture, in distinction from "(the) sacred writings" (for which see on verse 15) means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative. When Paul wrote these words, the direct reference was to a body of sacred literature which even then comprised more than the Old Testament (see 1 Tim 5:18).... Later, at the close of the first century A. D., "all scripture" had been completed. Though the history of recognition, review, and ratification of the canon was somewhat complicated, and virtually universal acceptance of all the sixty-six books did not occur immediately in every region where the church was represented - one of the reasons being that for a long time certain of the smaller books had not even reached every corner of the church' (Hendriksen & Kistemaker 1957:301).
  2. Edwin Blum: 'These sacred writings are what we know as the Old Testament books and are so valuable because they have the ability to give the "wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"' (Blum 1979:45)
There is teaching on inerrancy in this passage, based on the nature of God, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

Oz

Works consulted
Blum, E A 1979. The apostles' view of Scripture, in N L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, 39-56. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hendriksen, W & Kistemaker, S J 1955, 1957, 1984. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.
[/QUOTE]
That must be the WORST rationalization I've ever seen, ignoring historical context, authorial intent and even the very text in question. The scripture Paul's talking about here is the Septuagint - nothing more, nothing less. He's simply addressing the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MiniEmu
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Well, I am a philologist, so the first task would be to analyze the separate texts for telltale signs of authorship: if they've all been written by the same person, it'll show - and indeed, it does. There are some scholarly debates as to whether Bill Shakespeare wasn't just a cover for somebody else (Philipp Marlowe, Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, etc.), but one thing's for certain: these texts *were* written by a single author.
The same cannot be said about the Bible - and the Bible never disguises that fact. Its separate books bear the names of those people who (in some cases only supposedly) wrote them - both in the New and in the Old Testament. It doesn't claim that God wrote the psalms - David did. It doesn't claim that God wrote the gospel of Luke - the greek physician of that name did, etc.
It does not collect the texts of a single author - it collects texts written by very different people with very different perspectives and theologies, composed over a period of a thousand years. And it shows. No philologist would ever conclude that, say, the Song of Songs was written by the same person as Ecclesiastes.


Putting "by William Shakespeare" on the cover/under the title suffices for that (at first glance). The Bible does not even try to make that claim in relation to God.
That must be the WORST rationalization I've ever seen, ignoring historical context, authorial intent and even the very text in question. The scripture Paul's talking about here is the Septuagint - nothing more, nothing less. He's simply addressing the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures or not.[/QUOTE]

Jane,

You state:
  1. 'It doesn't claim that God wrote the psalms - David did'. That is not true. Many of the Psalms are attributed to David but many are not, e.g. Ps 1, 2, 10, 42 (sons of Korah), etc.
  2. 'It doesn't claim that God wrote the gospel of Luke - the greek physician of that name did'. No early MSS tells who wrote the Gospel of Luke. The inference is the Greek physician who was Paul's accomplice.
  3. 'No philologist would ever conclude that, say, the Song of Songs was written by the same person as Ecclesiastes'. SoS is attributed to Solomon (SoS 1:1) and Eccl to 'the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem' (Eccl 1:1). Many scholars identify 'the Preacher' as the son of king David, Solomon, and that of an old man. Your philologist friends don't like the same author, but the Hebrew scholars Keil & Delitzsch state of SoS, 'we believe we have proved that it distinctly bears evidences of its Solomonic origin' (Commentary on the Old Testament: Song of Solomon, vol 6 n d. Eerdmans, p. 11). In the same volume, their commentary on Ecclesiastes concludes very differently from yours: 'It is written as from the very soul of Solomon; it issues from the same fountain of wisdom' and they give their reasons for that conclusion (ibid., The Book of Ecclesiastes, p. 188). I'm sticking with Hebrew scholars and their conclusions.
  4. You don't like my explanation of 2 Tim 3:16 (ESV), but that's OK with me. There is not a word in that verse that says it was referring to the 'Scripture' of the LXX (although it could have been by inference) but it was referring primarily to the OT Scripture. Your view is that in this verse, 'he's simply addressing the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures or not'. No he's not! He's telling the nature of the authority of Scripture. It is theopneustos, God-breathed. I do note that you forgot to mention how this happens and 2 Pet 1:20-21 (ESV) articulates the particulars:
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Your discipline of philology seems to want to deny how God can take many human authors, to whom God spoke by his Spirit, and carried them along in writing 66 books of OT + NT. I have a high regard for the meaning of theopneustos.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
That must be the WORST rationalization I've ever seen, ignoring historical context, authorial intent and even the very text in question. The scripture Paul's talking about here is the Septuagint - nothing more, nothing less. He's simply addressing the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures or not.

I presume you are aware that the pastoral letters weren't written by Paul.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I presume you are aware that the pastoral letters weren't written by Paul.

You are presenting a view promoted by F Schliermacher from early in the 19th century. It also has been promoted by an array of modernist critics since that time who espouse authorship by a pseudepigrapher. However, as a NT scholar, I have examined this issue surrounding pseudepigraphy and have concluded that this view presents greater historical difficulties than accepting Pauline authorship.

For an investigation that leads to support of Pauline authorship, see Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624.
 
Upvote 0

Goatee

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.
Aug 16, 2015
7,585
3,621
59
Under a Rock. Wales, UK
✟77,615.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
Bible seems to be interpreted in ways suitable to those that want it to meet their needs. For me, its the fact that Jesus is the true Son of the living God. That is all that matters to me.

Kingdom of God is within us. It is not in any book or church or religion.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
You are presenting a view promoted by F Schliermacher from early in the 19th century.

That maybe who first proposed but more recent scholarship substantiated it.

However, as a NT scholar, I have examined this issue surrounding pseudepigraphy and have concluded that this view presents greater historical difficulties than accepting Pauline authorship.

I'm sure it presents theological difficulties for an inerrantist but it is a philologically, historically and academically sound thesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gord44
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
I presume you are aware that the pastoral letters weren't written by Paul.
Yes, but I thought it best not to bring up the issue of traditional authorship to avoid unneccessary complications. Which is why I find it doubly ironic that Oz is now trying to use that for *his* side of the argument.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
That maybe who first proposed but more recent scholarship substantiated it.



I'm sure it presents theological difficulties for an inerrantist but it is a philologically, historically and academically sound thesis.

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624, has demonstrated that that is not the case.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but I thought it best not to bring up the issue of traditional authorship to avoid unneccessary complications. Which is why I find it doubly ironic that Oz is now trying to use that for *his* side of the argument.

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624, an eminent NT scholar, had no difficulty and complications in demonstrating the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
I'm sure you think he has. I'll tell you what. I'll read your book if you read Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i Iqan. Here, you don't even have to buy the book:

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624, has demonstrated that that is not the case.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I'm sure you think he has. I'll tell you what. I'll read your book if you read Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i Iqan. Here, you don't even have to buy the book:

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/

I've done my own research and concluded differently to your position. Now you want to fob me off onto some other approach.

Let's keep on topic and why 2 Tim 3:16 is reliable and Pauline (and hence inerrant as God's theopneustos). There is ample evidence to affirm the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline. Here goes:

Irenaeus (ca. AD 125-202) and one of Polycarp's disciples stated this of the Pauline authorship of the pastorals in Against Heresies (3.3.3), 'Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.... Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself [a citation from Titus 3:10]' (emphasis added).

Tertullian (ca. AD 160-220) wrote, 'It is the same Paul who, in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts "heresies" among the sins of the flesh [Galatians 5:20] who also intimates to Titus, that a man who is a heretic must be rejected after the first admonition, on the ground that he that is such is perverted, and commits sin, as a self-condemned man [Titus 3:10-11] (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, ch 6).

Clement of Alexandria (b. ca. 150) wrote, 'You, therefore, be strong, says Paul, in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard of me among many witnesses, commit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also [2 Timothy 2:1-2, emphasis added]'. And again: Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth [2 Tim 2:15]' (The Stromata, Bk 1, Ch 1)

Brandon Carter's (2007) thesis investigated the Pauline authorship or otherwise of the Pastoral Epistles and concluded:
Having investigated the arguments for and against Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, several conclusions can be made. First, theories of pseudonymity create more problems than they solve and are not viable solutions for the problem of authorship. A pseudonymous writing is inherently deceptive and cannot be considered authoritative. Second, in regard to the historical evidence, the information within the epistles does not have to be forced into the timeline of the book of Acts. Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment and then a second arrest is entirely plausible. Furthermore, the numerous internal references to various historical circumstances only strengthen the case for authenticity while the external witness of the church fathers is overwhelmingly in favor of Pauline authorship. Third, the conclusion that Paul wrote the letters is not undermined by their theological content. The ecclesiology found in the letters does not conflict with church structure evident in Acts and the other epistles of the New Testament. Also, the heresy addressed in the letters is Jewish in nature and contemporaneous to the time of Paul. Finally, the differing vocabulary and literary style of the Pastoral Epistles and the undisputed Pauline corpus can be accounted for by the various circumstances and purposes surrounding the Pastorals’ composition. The use of hapax legomena [i.e. a term occurring only once] is dictated by the content of the letters, and statistical studies have demonstrated that the percentage of hapax legomena in the Pastoral Epistles is comparable to that of other Pauline writings. Moreover, the literary style of the Pastorals exhibits many similarities to the undisputed writings of the apostle. Thus, while the view of Pauline authorship is not without difficulties, readers have every reason to believe that the epistles to Timothy and Titus are, in fact, genuine writings of the apostle Paul and authoritative for the church today (Carter 2007:34-35).

Marcion and Tatian, 2 heretics of the 2nd century, did reject the Pauline authorship of the pastoral apostles (see Carter 2007).

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude:
'If such situations and contacts with people were fabricated by a pseudepigrapher pretending to be Paul, surely the fraud could have been easily exposed. However, none of the church fathers doubted the letters' authenticity. Thus, Knight argues that the self-testimony of the Pastoral Epistles makes clear in each introduction that the author was in fact Paul the apostle, and the extensive personal allusions that permeate each letter substantiate that claim' (Knight in Carter 2007:14).

Why are you wanting me to read about your Bahai faith when the topic is the inerrancy of Scripture. Seems like you are pushing your own agenda.

Works consulted
Carter, B 2007. The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (online). A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program, Liberty University, Fall. Available at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=honors (Accessed 17 August 2015).

Knight, G W 1992. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟55,644.00
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
I've done my own research and concluded differently to your position. Now you want to fob me off onto some other approach.

I'm just presenting what standard academic scholarship has already established.

Let's keep on topic and why 2 Tim 3:16 is reliable and Pauline (and hence inerrant as God's theopneustos). There is ample evidence to affirm the Pastoral Epistles as Pauline. Here goes:

Your evidence appears to rest merely on the opinion of some of the early church fathers. At most, what that establishes is that by the middle of the second century it was commonly believed Paul wrote those epistles. To prove he actually did write them, I would expect evidence such these epistles being consistent with Paul's writing style (they aren't) and to reflect the church structure as it existed in the first century (it doesn't.)

In any case, if biblical texts are going to be rejected on the basis of pseudepigrapha a great deal of the Old Testament would have to be rejected as well.

Brandon Carter's (2007) thesis investigated the Pauline authorship or otherwise of the Pastoral Epistles and concluded:

You're citing a bachelor's thesis from Liberty University as evidence?

Marcion and Tatian, 2 heretics of the 2nd century, did reject the Pauline authorship of the pastoral apostles (see Carter 2007).

And your point is?

Why are you wanting me to read about your Bahai faith when the topic is the inerrancy of Scripture. Seems like you are pushing your own agenda.

No, but when you claim a book proves something yet fail to state how it does so you obviously expect me to read it. I'm just saying I'll read one of yours if you'll read one of mine. Both books in a discussion of this sort are irrelevant unless you present evidence to demonstrate they are relevant.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟168,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
The Pastoral Epistles do not match Paul's diction and style, show some inconsistencies with the theology of the authentic epistles, and betray various anachronisms that are out of place in the time period these letters were supposed to be written in.

But that's beside the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is that the texts of the Bible claim no divine authorship (except for passages that are supposed to convey verbatim pronouncements of the deity), and do not seek to deny their human authors.
For example, traditionalists hold that Moses wrote most of the Pentateuch, while academics tend to regard these books as the work of several unknown authors and editors. Both are in agreement that these texts haven't been written or dictated by YHVH, however (except where otherwise indicated, provided you believe in that sort of thing).

Biblical literalism fails spectacularly, and relies on very shaky interpretations of no more than two verses in the entire Good Book.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I'm just presenting what standard academic scholarship has already established.

You definitely are not. You are presenting FILTERED academic scholarship that ignores contrary evidence - the evidence I have provided.

Your evidence appears to rest merely on the opinion of some of the early church fathers. At most, what that establishes is that by the middle of the second century it was commonly believed Paul wrote those epistles. To prove he actually did write them, I would expect evidence such these epistles being consistent with Paul's writing style (they aren't) and to reflect the church structure as it existed in the first century (it doesn't.)

That is false again. Why must you misrepresent what I write? I will not continue further discussion with you if you misrepresent me.

I presented Brandon Carter's (2007) evidence but you want to reject it because it is at the bachelor's level.

In any case, if biblical texts are going to be rejected on the basis of pseudepigrapha a great deal of the Old Testament would have to be rejected as well.
That's a red herring fallacy.

You're citing a bachelor's thesis from Liberty University as evidence?
You have committed a genetic logical fallacy with that comment.
And your point is?

And you don't know?
No, but when you claim a book proves something yet fail to state how it does so you obviously expect me to read it. I'm just saying I'll read one of yours if you'll read one of mine. Both books in a discussion of this sort are irrelevant unless you present evidence to demonstrate they are relevant.

I have more on my plate right now than to read your book that is totally unrelated to the topic we are discussing.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
"Liberty University"? Ah, yes, a private Christian fundamentalist college that teaches creationism as "science". Yyyyeah, that sure is a reliable academic source...

Why must you commit a genetic logical fallacy with this statement? It's a typical tactic to avoid dealing with the subject at hand.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tulipbee

Worker of the Hive
Apr 27, 2006
2,835
297
✟25,849.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Since spending a few years in researching the origins of the bible and trying to make sense of the intent of the writers of the bible I have discovered to much evidence that the bible is far from perfect. Why do people believe it is perfect?
Thats very very very very very very simple to answer why the 66 book bible is perfect. Just go to http://www.theomatics.com and get challenged on every and each account.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP 1971), pp 584-624, has demonstrated that that is not the case.

You are relying on one guy from 44 years ago, to latch onto?

Clearly, you have been quite selective in reviewing the works of well credentialed NT scholars and historians.
 
Upvote 0