How can we be sure that the Bible is infallible?

[CShephard53]

Actually, I was making sure Maranatha27 didn't do exactly that. He said that "we Christians" believe that the Bible is without error. I'm Christian, and I don't believe that. Belief in biblical inerrancy is fundamentalist in origin, so I corrected it. I'm completely against people putting words in others mouths.

Back off the attack for a moment and actually take a look at what's going on. Your knee-jerk hostility is messing with your perceptions.

You claim to follow Christ? It's kinda hard to do that when you pick and choose what's right, what's wrong; what's symbolic or metaphorical, what's literal.

 

[Dannager]

You claim to follow Christ? It's kinda hard to do that when you pick and choose what's right, what's wrong; what's symbolic or metaphorical, what's literal.

You know, I'm sick of this "pick and choose" nonsense. No one is "picking and choosing" their morality in the selfish, arbitrary fashion that you imply. We're carefully considering the context and intent of the material we have and reaching well-reasoned conclusions based on that. And yet you call it "pick and choose", one of the most disingenuous terms I can imagine for this situation. I see the sky is blue, I call it blue. I'm not "picking and choosing" that it's blue. It's blue.

I think a lot of us would appreciate it if you'd stop pulling that sort of stuff. Our take on Christian morality is just as valid (if not more so) as your own. The problem is, you can't attack it legitimately. There's no objective way you can demonstrate that your version is more correct, so instead you declare our version "pick and choose".

 

[CShephard53]

You know, I'm sick of this "pick and choose" nonsense. No one is "picking and choosing" their morality in the selfish, arbitrary fashion that you imply. We're carefully considering the context and intent of the material we have and reaching well-reasoned conclusions based on that. And yet you call it "pick and choose", one of the most disingenuous terms I can imagine for this situation. I see the sky is blue, I call it blue. I'm not "picking and choosing" that it's blue. It's blue.

I think a lot of us would appreciate it if you'd stop pulling that sort of stuff. Our take on Christian morality is just as valid (if not more so) as your own. The problem is, you can't attack it legitimately. There's no objective way you can demonstrate that your version is more correct, so instead you declare our version "pick and choose".

Um, who said anything about morality? I believe we were talking about the errancy of Scripture.

 

[Dannager]

Um, who said anything about morality?

You did.

It's kinda hard to do that when you pick and choose what's right, what's wrong;

I believe we were talking about the errancy of Scripture.

We were, until you decided that an off-topic tangent would help you out more than discussion on errancy.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, and while I'm at it, I may as well:

There's no objective way you can demonstrate that your version is more correct, so instead you declare our version "pick and choose".

That is called a straw man. Try to not do that, as you well know it's a fallacy.

 

[Dannager]

Oh, and while I'm at it, I may as well:

That is called a straw man. Try to not do that, as you well know it's a fallacy.

How in the world is that a strawman argument? I'd have to be misrepresenting your position, and I'm pretty clearly not. You actually did declare my take on morality "pick and choose". Good try.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Every Christian says that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

...but the Bible was written by men...
...and they sin
...and so they could be inspired but say "nahhh, I'd rather write my own thing". It might seem stupid, but every sin is so...

Hank Hannegraff uses the acronym MAPS

M= Manuscript Evidence
We know we have what they wrote . . . whether we agree is another issue

A= Archaeological Evidence
Every time discoveries and such are made of ancient Israel/Palestine or other places mentioned in the Scriptures . . . the Scriptures are proven right. Many have made many contentions of the errors of historical places and people . . . but have been found to be wrong (the stele of David and the Pontius Pilate inscription come to mind).

P= Predictive Prophecy
The best example is that of the suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. The composition of Isaiah circa 700 BCE predates even the invetion of the ACT OF CRUCIFIXION by at least 5-600 years and predates the specifics of CHRIST'S crucifixion by 7 centuries! And specifically fulfills several prophecies that if all were fulfilled in ONE person 700 years later would be the probablility of 1 to the 17th power (that is 1 with 17 0's behind it).

S= Statistical Probability
Referred to above. The analogy has been that if you took half dollar pieces and filled an area the size of texas with them at four feet in depth . . . marked ONE . . . mixed the whole lot of them up . . . and took a step out onto the mass . . . the chance that you would pick up THAT ONE MARKED piece is the same chance that just SEVEN of the 300 MAJOR and 300 additional minor prophecies concerning Christ would come to pass in ONE person.

Cheers!

 

[artybloke]

M= Manuscript Evidence
We know we have what they wrote . . . whether we agree is another issue

No, not really. The fullest manuscripts we have are still at least AD500 for the NT alone. Before that, it's fragments. The OT is complicated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which don't always agree with the Masoretic (though they largely do.)

There seems to be a large measure of agreement between the manuscripts we have; but it's still a long time after they were purportedly written. And there are errors and insertions: eg the end of Mark.

Documentary criticism is far from being in its endgame.

P= Predictive Prophecy

I'm afraid I've always thought this was nonsense. That someone can read into texts written hundreds of years before the events of Christ's life is what's known as "after-the-fact" prediction. None of the so-called predictions, when read in their own literary and historical context, can be said to predict anything.

 

[CShephard53]

How in the world is that a strawman argument? I'd have to be misrepresenting your position, and I'm pretty clearly not. You actually did declare my take on morality "pick and choose". Good try.

No, I did not. I stated that. You were claiming that I was claiming that 'my version of morality is better', which I never stated or implied. Context, dude.

 

[CShephard53]

You did.

We were, until you decided that an off-topic tangent would help you out more than discussion on errancy.

No. We were talking about the errancy of Scripture. Errancy: what is wrong. Inerrancy: what is free from error, or what is right. Do you have a problem understanding here? Now you're trying to put words in MY mouth. Do try to stop that, since you claimed to be concerned about it before.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

No, not really. The fullest manuscripts we have are still at least AD500 for the NT alone. Before that, it's fragments. The OT is complicated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which don't always agree with the Masoretic (though they largely do.)

There seems to be a large measure of agreement between the manuscripts we have; but it's still a long time after they were purportedly written. And there are errors and insertions: eg the end of Mark.

Documentary criticism is far from being in its endgame.



I'm afraid I've always thought this was nonsense. That someone can read into texts written hundreds of years before the events of Christ's life is what's known as "after-the-fact" prediction. None of the so-called predictions, when read in their own literary and historical context, can be said to predict anything.

Actually the complete codices that we do have are 5th Cent (that would be 400AD).

and we have largely intact portions that date to the second cent (like entire books) and fragments that date to late first cent.

As for the predictive prophecy . . . you can hardly call Daniel's prediction of a ruler BY NAME hundreds of years before an "after-the-fact" prediction . . . nor the sufferning servant passages of Isaiah.

 

[artybloke]

and we have largely intact portions that date to the second cent (like entire books) and fragments that date to late first cent.

The earliest extant fragment is in the city I call home. It's about 2ins square, is called the John Rylands fragment (because it's in the John Rylands Library, Manchester_, and is from AD150 or so. It's a portion of John's Gospel.

Try again.

you can hardly call Daniel's prediction of a ruler BY NAME hundreds of years before an "after-the-fact"

According to the vast majority of OT scholars Daniel was written in the mid second century BC. Some of the Daniel legends are older, of course, but the apocalyptic passages are lingusitically 2nd century, not 4th.

Try again.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The earliest extant fragment is in the city I call home. It's about 2ins square, is called the John Rylands fragment (because it's in the John Rylands Library, Manchester_, and is from AD150 or so. It's a portion of John's Gospel.

Try again.



According to the vast majority of OT scholars Daniel was written in the mid second century BC. Some of the Daniel legends are older, of course, but the apocalyptic passages are lingusitically 2nd century, not 4th.

Try again.

OT Liberal Scholars! And do you know WHY they date Daniel that late? Because of the predictive element! No other reason . . . as they do with ALL the other predictive passages . . . like the *so-called* deutero Isaiah. Hardly objective reasons for dating . . . they only do so because to date it any earlier would contradict their presupposition that predictive prophecy ISN'T REAL. There is NO reason to accept their late dating.

What about the Magdalene MSS of Matthew 26 . . . dated 50-60 AD . . .

is this a better *try* . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Try this:

Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.
The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!
The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

from

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

 

[cyberlizard]

if you two are finished and want to chew on something really good, then next year a bible is coming onto the market called the International Standard Version (ISV - http://isv.org).

The overall co-ordinating team for the dead sea scrolls are so impressed by the quality of the translation that they have offered there database of old testament variants to them royalty free for the next five years from publication.

This will be the only bible on the market with DSS materials in its footnotes (and it has verrrryyyyy good footnotes).

But the best thing.... is that even if you do not want to buy one, it will ALWAYS be available for free download. At the moment the New Testament is complete with Psalms and Proverbs (but P&P is also being reworked for DSS MS footnotes). The current version is 1.4.4 and is freely downloadable in PDF and DOC format from the website I mentioned earlier.

I have been using it for ages, and if you have a real question about the translation of a passage, sentence or word, email them and they get back to you within a few days. They even give the names of the translators so you can check the credentials of the main committee and the other major players in the translation.


Steve

 

[artybloke]

OT Liberal Scholars! And do you know WHY they date Daniel that late? Because of the predictive element! No other reason

Typical fundamentalist dismissal of scholarship. Much better to be ignorant.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Typical fundamentalist dismissal of scholarship. Much better to be ignorant.

Can you show me a good reason . . . other than the predictive element . . . that has caused them to reject early dates?

As far as I know of, NONE have presented a reason not founded upon the simple assumption that something that predicts something accurately with the claim as the revelation of God CANNOT be possible because
1. God doesn't exist
2. Predictive prophecy doesn't exist because nothing supernatural exists

Sorry . . . but that is a priori rejection, hardly objective and quite UN-scholarly.

And you didn't respond to the other contentions . . . proof for the earlier MSS's . . . care to try again?

 

[artybloke]

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede.txt.final.reply

You confidence in the redating of the Magdelen codex seems somewhat misplaced, as the above makes clear. Personally, I'd agree with the usual dating of 200AD.

(Amazing what you find with 5 minutes google search...)

As for Daniel, is there anything in your reply that isn't merely an accusation of bad faith? Documentary analysis involves study of the language used, whether the Hebrew of the Hebrew portions of Daniel has lots of Hellenisms that suggest a wide contact with Hellenistic culture etc etc etc...

Most OT scholars are either going to be Jewish or Christian scholars who are active members of churches; to accuse them of lack of faith is typical of the way that fundamentalists refuse to deal with the evidence. Accusations like this were what permenantly put me off conservative "scholarship." It refuses to deal with the evidence (which is, of course, always open to new evidence changing things; after all, the Magdalen MS was assumed once to be 4th century,) and simply throws out accusations at its opponents.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/thiede.txt.final.reply

You confidence in the redating of the Magdelen codex seems somewhat misplaced, as the above makes clear. Personally, I'd agree with the usual dating of 200AD.

(Amazing what you find with 5 minutes google search...)

As for Daniel, is there anything in your reply that isn't merely an accusation of bad faith? Documentary analysis involves study of the language used, whether the Hebrew of the Hebrew portions of Daniel has lots of Hellenisms that suggest a wide contact with Hellenistic culture etc etc etc...

Most OT scholars are either going to be Jewish or Christian scholars who are active members of churches; to accuse them of lack of faith is typical of the way that fundamentalists refuse to deal with the evidence. Accusations like this were what permenantly put me off conservative "scholarship." It refuses to deal with the evidence (which is, of course, always open to new evidence changing things; after all, the Magdalen MS was assumed once to be 4th century,) and simply throws out accusations at its opponents.

Most OT scholars may associate themselves with communities of Faith . . . that means nothing. Even conservative Jews have LOTS of twisting that they have to do to justify the removal of the Temple in 70 AD and how that plays into their current state of worship.

Even many of the *Jesus* Seminar claim to be Christians . . . but they don't believe the faith . . . and as such cannot be called Christians.

Ok Arty . . . give me some of the Hellenisms of Daniel and lets look at them.

As for the Mag. frag . . . it aint the only one . . . and what reason is there to NOT accept an early date? The analysis is consistent with the time in question writing style . . .

 

[artybloke]

As for the Mag. frag . . . it aint the only one . . . and what reason is there to NOT accept an early date?

Did you read the article? Maybe you should read the article. It gave plenty of reasons not to accept an early date; not least being the fact that it's from a codex. There is no codex earlier that 200AD, and nothing to suppose that this is an earlier example than anything else so far found.

Even many of the *Jesus* Seminar claim to be Christians . . . but they don't believe the faith

So you say.

Daniel will take me longer to research, by the way.