On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:20:27 -0600 (CST) you wrote:
>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....."
>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...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....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....Equally there is the ERROR of those who assume
>that a difficulty "can only be the result of an error in the
>original!
SJ>I do *not* claim that the Bible (as originally given) *does*
>contain errors, but equally I cannot prove that it *does not*
>contain error.
[...]
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.
RM>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...."
It is only sufficent to maintain that they got the "major doctrine"
matters right. It would not matter to me if one of them had later
misunderstood about the "staff" (although I think this may have been
a scribal gloss). In 1Cor 1:16, Paul, writing under divine
inspirations, admits to being unable to remember a minor matter:
"(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I
don't remember if I baptized anyone else.).
RM>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.
Yes, but already we have here a start of qualifying what "error"
means. The point is than an atheist could say from the outset:
"I don't accept your definition of error, I prefer my own. If you
Christians say the Bible is 100% free from error, yet it says that a
circular dish could be simultantaneously 10 units in diameter and 30
units around, then that is an `error' in my book"
I suggest that it is unnecessary apologetic baggage to try to defend
the Bible from having any errors. All we need to do is to defend its
*substantial* reliability in the things it *affirms* (it does not
affirm that PI=3.0). What it does affirm is about God, sin, judgment
and salvation. However, part of defending the Bible's "substantial*
reliability" is showing that many (if not all) claimed errors may not
be errors, when the Bible is understood in its historical and cultural
context, and the problem of hand copying of the original MSS is taken
into account. If this left us with a Bible that (say) contains only
1% error, and no major doctrines affected, then this would be amply
sufficient for God's purposes. Charles Hodge says:
"No sane man would deny that the Parthenon was built of marble, even
if here and there a speck of sandstone should be detected in its
structure. Not less unreasonable is it to deny the inspiration of
such a book as the Bible, because one sacred writer says that on a
given occasion twenty four, and on another twenty three thousand men
were slain." (Hodge C., "Systematic Theology", Vol. I, 1892, James
Clark & Co: London, 1960 reprint, p170).
RM>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!
I agree with the sentiment, but we are talking about *apologetics*,
not dogmatics. Our enquiring atheist would say that a "direct
contradiction" prima facie falsifies your claim that the Bible is 100%
error-free. What you say might be true, but it is impossible to sell
to those who we are trying to reach, and it is an unnecessary burden!
:-)
RM>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!
We are close to agreeing. I will defend the Bible from claimed errors
in particular cases, but I would not claim that the Bible (even as
originally given) contains absolutely *no* "errors".
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------