The changing face of biblical inerrancy

[polonius]

The term “inerrancy� (or freedom from error) is used more commonly by conservative Protestants than Catholics.

This view was common among Christian clergy until about the mid-1900s when it began to change.. In short, the older belief was that God directly or indirectly controlled the writing of scripture and would not have led the authors of scripture into error since deceit and error were not possible with God.

As Wikipedia summarizes: Biblical inerrancy…. is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]

1. Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-85110-652-6. OCLC 29952151.
But is it so?

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

RESPONSE:

Lets use common sense and the plain meaning of words.

Each of the accounts of Mark, Luke, and John say Jesus sent for one animal and rode on it. "It" is used throughout the three passages.

But in Matthew's story Jesus has the Apostles bring two animals (a donkey and a colt) and always refers to "them" never to "it." "It" is always singlar. "Them" is always plural (more than one).

Matthew's account reads (NRSV):

21 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.[a]� 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.�
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.

1. In Mark, Luke, anf John there is only one animal involved. In Matthew there are two animals. That is a contradiction and thus an error in inspired scripture.

2. Then Matthew quotes the prophecy which he is having Jesus fulfill:

Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

The error exists whether of not the King and Jesus both rode on two animals at the same time or not. But presumably, "he sat on them" means what it says.

Does it seem probable that Jesus would stop riding one animal, get off the animal, the people would then transfer their cloaks onto a second animal and Jesus would then ride it?

The fundamental error is that Matthew didn't understand that there was only one animal in the original prophecy. It was actually a Hebrew idiom, only one animal is meant. But Matthew thought there were two animals and had Jesus do the same thing.

The error is the contradiction between one animal (it) and more than one animal (them).

[polonius]

Matthew: “ While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table�

or

Mark: “While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

or

Luke: “A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.�

or

John: Then Mary [ the sister of Lazarus] took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair

So in sum we have Jesus being anointed by a women, a sinful woman (prostitute), or by Mary, the sister of Lazarus. We have Jesus anointed on his head or on his feet.

Article 12 of the Chicago Statement on the inerrancy of scripture.

"Article 12 WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science."

But here we have three differing “inspired� versions of the anointing of Jesus. Obviously, only one (if even that) actually happened and is historical. The others are fictional. Maybe the Holy Spirit had a bad day.

[JehovahsWitness]

Matthew: “ While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table�

or

Mark: “While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

As I explained in an earlier post...

A contradition only exsists if both statements cannot be true. This would be the case if, for example Mark, Luke and John stated explicity that there were NOT two animals. It is not a contradiction if one narrative simply omittes certain détails which the other includes if both can be true.

If two animals (animal (a) and animal (b) were taken) then it is true that animal (a) was taken and it is ALSO true that animal (a) and (b) were taken. To illustrate:

Statement #1 Mary went to the Post Office
Statement #2 John went to the Post office

Possible reconciation: Both Mary and John went to the Post Office.

Statement #1 Mary went to the Post Office
Statement #2 Only John went to the Post office alone, Mary did not go with him.

Possible Contradiction

In the case of Mary of Bethany, evidently she poured the oïl on BOTH Jesus head AND feet. Each bible writer choosing to concentrate on a different detail, both of which can be true. Thus we do not have a true contradiction.

contradiction

1 : the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else

2 : a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction

So in sum we have Jesus being anointed by a women, a sinful woman (prostitute), or by Mary, the sister of Lazarus. We have Jesus anointed on his head or on his feet.

Well obviously we have no contradiction if we are talking about TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. You evidently have confused Mary of BETHANY with the unnamed sinnful woman who wept at Jesus' feet on a different occassion nearly a full year earlier at at differnt location in different company.

You point is like saying there is a contradiction between

Margaret Thatcher meeting with President Reagan and giving him eggs.
And
Margaret (sister of the Queen of England) meeting with the President Reagan and giving him bacon.

And A Woman meeting with President Reagan and giving him toast

Hardly a criticism that could be taken seriously

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE VIRGIN MARY , JESUS CHRIST and ...CONCEPTION & BIRTH

JW

[polonius]

Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8


>> In the case of Mary of Bethany, evidently she poured the oïl on BOTH Jesus head AND feet. Each bible writer choosing to concentrate on a different detail, both of which can be true. Thus we do not have a true contradiction. <<

RESPONSE: Both??? Oh come now.

Let’s look at Luke’s inspired and inerrant version of the story:

Luke 7:“You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.�
And did you happen to notice that Luke’s version occurs much earlier in Jesus’ career and apparently not in Bethany?

Why don’t you just claim that these were four entirely different events?

[polonius]

Are you going to tell us that the four inspired and inerrant crucifixion and resurrection accounts do not contain any contradictions that cannot be explained away?

[polonius]

The Inerrancy of Scripture: by Kevin Vanhoozer

http://www.theologynetwork.org/biblical ... pture-.htm

“The Bible's own understanding of truth stresses reliability. God's Word is true because it can be relied upon - relied upon to make good its claim and to accomplish its purpose. We may therefore speak of the Bible's promises, commands, warnings, etc. as being 'true', inasmuch as they too can be relied upon. Together, the terms inerrancy and infallibility remind us that the Word of God is wholly reliable not only when it speaks, but also when it does the truth.�

For example, Leviticus 25:44-46New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.

Leading to: Instruction of the Holy Office, 1866, "Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. “

If scripture is inerrant then, are we scripturally justified in selling and buying slaves? Or is scripture the very errant work of man?