That's a whole different can of worms. I did not intend to address the believability of certain Bible stories (talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man who loses strength because of a haircut). Whole different can of worms.
I intended only to talk about two stories that disagree irreconcilably on a given point. I'm talking about Paul swearing up and down that he did not do exactly what Acts records him doing. Somebody's wrong there. I'm talking about Matthew saying Joseph and Mary didn't take up residence in Nazareth until after the sojourn in Egypt, while Luke tells us they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem, then Jerusalem, then back to Nazareth while Christ was still days old.
Not apparent contradictions; actual errors.
And one of the things TWI excelled at was taking these bizarre efforts at reconciling conflicting accounts and making OTHER people look dishonest for failing to engage in this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
The stories about Peter denying Jesus make a whole lot more sense when you just recognize that the gospel writers got the main point right but differed on the minor details, for a host of reasons. By making God the selector of each word in the Bible, TWI robs the Bible of the ability to contradict itself. Then TWI comes swooping in to the rescue. We can resolve all these contradictions! (No, you can't. You can only claim to).
TWI is, of course, not alone in this.
When the letter to Timothy says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, it is not referring to itself. There is no reason to think it is referring to itself. There is no reason to think it was discussing the gospel of John or the Revelation or I and II Peter or most other books of the New Testament, many of which had not yet been written.
That is what I mean when I say the Bible lacks the sense of self-awareness to refer to itself as God's Word. Paul, in I Corinthians, draws very clear distinctions separating when he is referring to a commandment of the Lord and when he is speaking as Paul. If it's ALL God's Word, the distinction makes no sense at all. At all.
That is what I mean when I say the Bible lacks the sense of self-awareness to refer to itself as God's Word. Paul, in I Corinthians, draws very clear distinctions separating when he is referring to a commandment of the Lord and when he is speaking as Paul. If it's ALL God's Word, the distinction makes no sense at all. At all.
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
vv. 25-28
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
What are we to make of these verses? Is this God's advice? Where does it say it's God's advice? It's explicitly not God's advice. It's explicitly Paul's advice. Now, it's good advice. God wouldn't disagree. God wouldn't disagree with a mom telling her kid to look both ways before crossing the street, but that doesn't make her advice the God-breathed Word! Paul gives us some good advice here. Take it, and cool. Don't take it, and that's cool too. You haven't sinned.
The point is that the advice Paul gives is declared in the Bible to NOT be God's Word.
This is a real logical conundrum. Everything in the Bible is God's Word. Something in the Bible declares itself to not be God's Word. It is God's Word that something in the Bible that is explicitly addressed to believers is not God's Word.
Only by forcing the equation The Bible = God's Word do we have a problem. Eliminate that equation, and there IS no conundrum. Some of Paul's advice is a direct commandment of the Lord. Some of it is not. Sometimes he makes it obvious. Most times he does not -- what he writes is presumed to be of God, although nowhere does he state that what he is writing is God-breathed. "God showed me these truths" is very different from "God is making sure I use this particular preposition because if I use any other word your whole Bible will fall to pieces."
Some other "that's Paul's words, not God's Word" items should be obvious. I am as certain as I could possibly be that God does not want me to wait for Tychicus to show up at my door or my church to tell me everything or to encourage me with the latest news about Paul's well-being (Ephesians 6:21-22). I am absolutely certain that I did not send gifts to Paul via our mutual friend Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18). Colossians 4:7-17 make perfect, perfect sense as Paul writing to people he knows, and no sense at all as divinely inspired scripture with a purpose and meaning for my life. It is not "God's Word." It's a dude writing a letter to a specific group of people and adding personal touches. A lot of what he writes is applicable to any Christian, anywhere, anytime. But some of it is clearly not.
When I say the Bible lacks the self-awareness to consider itself God's Word, this is what I'm talking about. Paul doesn't know he's writing Scripture. He thinks he's writing a letter. If he knew he was writing Scripture, it's hard to imagine he would include the personal touches. It would be like me writing, knowing I am writing The Holy and Eternal Word of the Living God, and using the last few lines to say "Yo! Shout out to my homeboys in the Boogie Down Bronx! Yeah boyeeeeeee!" Who would do that?
I Corinthians 7:10-12<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">vv. 25-28<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(243, 249, 246);">Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
You've lost me. Here he's specifically saying "i give this command (not I but the Lord) He's stating that this isn't his idea, the Lord commanded.The last sentence he stipulates that what he's said is his opinion.....not a commandment of the Lord.
Did I misunderstand your idea about Scripture? Here is seems that Paul is marking out 2 places which are commandments and one which isn't.
quote: The Bible never actually declares itself to be without error or contradiction. That's an assertion made by PFAL about the Bible, not an assertion made by the Bible itself.
Luke 1:3 - It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto the in order, most excellent Theophilus.
Where did he get that perfect understanding? Where's God in your suppositions? You're right back where VP was in the 40s. Didn't think the words 'holy bible' should be on the cover.
In my suppositions, God doesn't make mistakes. Man does. The Bible has mistakes. The mistakes cannot be attributed to God. They can only be attributed to man. But they are actual errors in the Bible.
You've lost me. Here he's specifically saying "i give this command (not I but the Lord) He's stating that this isn't his idea, the Lord commanded.The last sentence he stipulates that what he's said is his opinion.....not a commandment of the Lord.
Did I misunderstand your idea about Scripture? Here is seems that Paul is marking out 2 places which are commandments and one which isn't.
Krys, referring specifically to the selection of scripture we have quoted, Paul marks out two things he wrote which are not commandments of the Lord and one thing that is.
If God wanted to say "I advise, but do not command" he could have done so very easily. That is not what Paul writes. Paul specifically marks out when he is writing a commandment of the Lord. Had he thought of his own writing as Scripture , there would be no need for him to do that, and it would be unfathomable that he would inject his own advice in the middle of God's commandment. Makes perfect sense in a letter. Makes no sense in a Scripture .
"Inerrancy" of the Bible was never an issue until the 1800s. The idea of inerrancy was a reaction to the "higher criticism" (source criticism, textual criticism, etc.) that was spreading from German to English to American seminaries from 1810 onwards, and to advances in geological knowledge.
The higher criticism began with Schleiermacher at the founding of the University of Berlin. He wanted a theology department but the government didn't. In order to get a theology department, he had to promise that it would be "scientific." Now source criticism, textual criticism, etc. are legitimate forms for analyzing ANY literature, and they are also legitimate for analyzing the Bible. Schleiermacher's problem was that the science of the 1800s held ALL supernatural activity to be impossible, Therefore, what became known as liberal theology had to deny that ANY supernatural activity recorded in the Bible was possible, and had to be explained in natural terms, principles recognized by classical Newtonian mechanics.
The Fundamentalists reacted with inerrancy, which totally missed the issue. but what else could they do? It wasn't until about 1925 that Niels Bohr developed quantum mechanics, which supercedes the Newtonian system and DOES allow for the reality of the "supernatural."
The idea of inerrancy is as relevant today as buggy whips.
When the letter to Timothy says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, it is not referring to itself. There is no reason to think it is referring to itself. There is no reason to think it was discussing the gospel of John or the Revelation or I and II Peter or most other books of the New Testament, many of which had not yet been written.
Even if that verse does refer to "God Breathed" referring to scripture, that still does not mean that is an instruction to mankind to employ what Ralph Waldo Emerson writes as "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and leap to the conclusion that therefore according to man's logic it can never have one iota of contradiction.
Look at Proverbs even - "Answer a fool according to his folly" and "Answer not a fool according to his folly"
To me "God breathed" just means "inspirational". Not an instruction to take apart the human lung system to dissect what breathing really means and then construct a Tower of Babel religion based on that all with human-based logical fallacies resembling Dana Carvey's comedy routine "Squatting Monkeys Tell No Lies".
First, did the writer of I Timothy intend to include as "God-breathed" the scriptures of the New Testament? Did he intend to include the very letter he was writing? Assuming the answer to both questions to be "yes," as johniam and all inerrantists no doubt hold, the next question is "what does God-breathed mean?" We can ignore the first question and focus on the second.
PFAL gives us a very specific answer to what it means for scripture to be God-breathed. Explicitly and implicitly, PFAL and its related works hold that God-breathed scripture will be perfect, will have no errors or contradictions. That's why, in addressing whether PFAL is God-breathed, we are entitled to hold PFAL up to its own standard. Hence, "Actual Errors in PFAL."
Having ruled out PFAL as God-breathed according to its own definition, we come to a different question: Does THE BIBLE pass PFAL's standard of what it means to be God-breathed? I think the honest answer to that is "no." It is not inerrant. It has flat-out errors [for example, in Exodus 1:11, the Hebrews are credited with building the city of Rameses for the Egyptians. That city was not built until hundreds of years after the Exodus took place. This is not an "apparent contradiction." It's a colossal blunder. In Genesis, Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldeans. This is a problem on two levels -- The Chaldeans did not have control of Ur in the time that Abraham lived... and they did not have control of Ur in the time that MOSES lived. Let that sink in: it means whoever called Abraham's land Ur of the Chaldeans, it wasn't Moses. That would be like Christopher Columbus writing about Washington D.C.)
So the Bible, Old Testament and New, simply does not live up to PFAL's standard of what it means to be God-breathed.
However, does it live up to its own standard of what it means to be God-breathed? Does it even set such a standard?
The concept of inerrancy forces the Bible to conform to a standard it does not set for itself. It is unfair to judge the Bible based on this standard.
If PFAL is right about what it means to be God-breathed, then the Bible is not God-breathed. The Bible is only God-breathed if PFAL is wrong about what that term even means.
I found an interesting approach to the "answer a fool according to his folly" problem that, in my opinion, answers the issue adequately and removes it as a contradiction.
Finally, the critic engages in black and white either/or thinking when a both/and approach seems to be called for. This can be tricky, so let me set up my case by using one of the supposed contradictions cited:
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself." [Pr 26:4]
"Answer of fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." [Pr 26:5]
The first thing to note is that these seemingly contradictory teachings are right next to each other. Could the writer of Proverbs be so stupid as to not notice this? I hardly think so. In fact, I think it is very illuminating that these teachings are closely tied. They highlight the fact that Biblical admonitions need not fall under the "either/or" criteria, but can be more properly understood in terms of "both/and." In fact, I have often found these two teachings from Proverbs quite useful.
In debating various non-Christians, I often encounter foolish responses and name-calling. I can either choose not to respond or ignore the foolishness and get to the point of contention. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:4. In other instances, I mirror the foolishness of my antagonist in the hopes that he/she can perceive the folly of their approach when I employ it. At such times, I follow Proverbs 26:5. The key is knowing when to use which approach, and in such instances, I try to allow the Spirit to guide me.
quote: The Bible never actually declares itself to be without error or contradiction. That's an assertion made by PFAL about the Bible, not an assertion made by the Bible itself.
Luke 1:3 - It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto the in order, most excellent Theophilus.
Where did he get that perfect understanding? Where's God in your suppositions? You're right back where VP was in the 40s. Didn't think the words 'holy bible' should be on the cover.
You're really shackling your understanding by relying solely on the
phraseology of a book written in 1611, when your own understanding is
21st century. Even if it was all translated perfectly, you wouldn't think
it meant what it meant to readers 500 years ago.
That's not even addressing isolating what it said from its context.
Luke 1:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Does "from the beginning" refer to Genesis 1:1's timeframe?
No, the context indicates it's referring to the beginning of JESUS.
The context of Luke 1:3 indicates "perfect understanding of all things
from the very first" does not mean
"when I was born, I understood everything", nor does it mean
"when I first heard of Jesus, I completely understood everything about
his identity and mission."
It means-and this is not difficult to see-
that Luke is saying that Luke was in on things from early on, and understood
them as they unfolded. He's not showing up decades later, trying to
figure out what happened. He was there for some things, and spoke to
eyewitnesses shortly thereafter for other things.
He had a "COMPLETE" understanding of the story that unfolded,
NOT an ERROR-FREE understanding of all of Scripture.
Frankly, you're supporting Raf's claim by bringing up that verse.
It's clear Luke's saying that the intention to write Luke's account-
the entire Gospel of Luke- was initiated by LUKE.
The idea that you're claiming the words say-having taken them from their
context- melts away when looking at how other versions dealt with the
same verses.
Luke 1:1-4
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Introduction
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
New International Version (NIV)
Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
1 Many people have tried to tell the story of what God has done among us. 2 They wrote what we had been told by the ones who were there in the beginning and saw what happened. 3 So I made a careful study of everything and then decided to write and tell you exactly what took place. Honorable Theophilus, 4 I have done this to let you know the truth about what you have heard.
The NASB, in particular, is a word-for-word translation.
You made 2 mistakes there. You ignored the context, which is akin to
quoting Scripture and concluding "there is no God."
You also relied entirely on 1611 English- and never bothered to check the
Greek, or Aramaic or whatever you think it came from. The modern versions
all came DIRECTLY from the Greek texts, so it makes sense to at least
check their contents- say, what your interlinear says- before deciding the
archaic KJV phraseology is accurate. That's how people get "fill" to
mean "replenish" when the original said "fill", then write their theology
around the idea it said "replenish" rather than "fill." That's how
someone can read "throughly" in a KJV and make a big deal about how it
meant something different than "thoroughly"-when the original meant
"thoroughly" and that was identical in meaning in 1611 but not in the
20th or 21st century.
Raf's making very different points than you're objecting to.
He's certainly not in the same position of a minister who preaches
weekly from the pulpit and doesn't believe the words "Holy Bible."
I'm carefully noting what IS and is NOT being said. You're not objecting
to what's been posted, you're objecting to something different and
THINKING it's what's been posted. Please don't do that.
Even if that verse does refer to "God Breathed" referring to scripture, that still does not mean that is an instruction to mankind to employ what Ralph Waldo Emerson writes as "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and leap to the conclusion that therefore according to man's logic it can never have one iota of contradiction.
Look at Proverbs even - "Answer a fool according to his folly" and "Answer not a fool according to his folly"
To me "God breathed" just means "inspirational". Not an instruction to take apart the human lung system to dissect what breathing really means and then construct a Tower of Babel religion based on that all with human-based logical fallacies resembling Dana Carvey's comedy routine "Squatting Monkeys Tell No Lies".
It's all just how shall I say "a bit much" ?
I don't see the Proverbs thing as any sort of contradiction.
It's a perfectly legitimate figure of speech-and used today- to change
the usage of a phrase when talking. It's fine so long as the hearers
understand you.
You don't answer a fool THE SAME WAY he's raving.
You answer a fool according to the magnitude of his foolishness.
What it would mean to say "God breathed" is an interesting avenue of
discussion that clearly belongs in Doctrinal and should be discussed.
Actually, I think the whole thing belongs in doctrinal. While my original point may have been "how did TWI handle this one contradiction? (apparent or real)," I just don't see any way of discussing this issue without falling into a doctrinal discussion.
While we're here, can anyone dig up for me how Wierwille deals with the problem of Luke 2:2 in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed? I don't want to say what the problem is at this point. I just want to see how Wierwille handled that verse.
On page 201 of JCOPS goes into a several page song and dance about Luke 2:2. The upshot is that Wierwille posits two separate taxings, one in 3 BC and on in AD 6-7. Wierwille goes on to write that Quirinius was in charge of both, even though he didn't become governor until AD 6.
Wierwille concludes that Luke 2:2 should be translated "This first registration took place when Quirinius was on special assignment in Syria."
He placed special emphasis on the word "first," which I haven't checked in the Greek, but I might. I know one of the things I would look at would be the tenses of the verbs. I may do that later this evening.
I recommend The Problem of Luke 2:2 by Daniel Wallace, a bona fide Greek scholar and inerrantist who handles that verse with some pretty humble integrity. Easy to find online.
I recommend The Problem of Luke 2:2 by Daniel Wallace, a bona fide Greek scholar and inerrantist who handles that verse with some pretty humble integrity. Easy to find online.
I read Wallace's essay. It seems reasonable, but I'd have to do a lot more studying before I would venture to either confirm or deny it.
One thing I find frustratingly non-sensical about the inerrancy position is that if we can't make literal sense of ANY TINY LITTLE DETAIL, then the WHOLE BIBLE falls to pieces. People are taught that as little kids, and when they grow up and find out the Bible is not as simplistic as they were taught, too often they throw the whole thing out and become athiests...
I believe Wallace because given his bias, one would expect him to reach the opposite conclusion. He rather obviously knows a thing or two about Greek grammar (I mean, he literally wrote the book!). He could very easily take the position that "first" should mean "before," and everyone would assume he's right. Why embrace the position that undermines your own theology unless integrity demands it?
I concede, however, that I have no personal basis for agreeing with him. When you're not an expert in something, you rely on the expertise of others. Comparing Wierwille's expertise to Wallace's on this matter: it's not even close. Wierwille bends over backwards and literally invents history to make this verse fit. Wallace admits that it doesn't fit and, as we used to say, holds the question in abeyance. It seems that, given the facts, it's the only honest position he can take. I admire him for that.
Luke 2:2 says that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is that Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until 6 CE, long after the birth of Jesus. This has been recognized as a problem for the accuracy of the Luke account for centuries. We know Herod was alive when Jesus was born (Matthew makes no sense at all if he was not). According to Wierwille, Herod dies in 1 B.C. (historical scholars are more inclined to offer 4 BC as the date of his death, but whichever is correct, it's long before 6 CE). So how do we reconcile the problem?
Wierwille joins inerrantists who jump through hoops to get Luke 2:2 to say something it is not saying. Maybe the census was "before" Quirinius was governor of Syria. That would work if the word used was "before." But it's not. Maybe Quirinius was governor of Syria more than once (he wasn't). Wierwille proposes this translation: "This first registration took place when Quirinius was on special assignment in Syria."
Special assignment? Where's the evidence? There is none. And let me add, coming from the teacher who lambasted Eve for omitting a word, adding a word and changing a word so that we no longer have the Word, this proposed translation stinks of spectacular hypocrisy. The verse says what it says. Sorry.
Couple this with the fact that there is no historical evidence for a census that would require people to travel from where they live (which is the whole POINT of a census) to where their ancestors lived centuries earlier (huh?). What possible need would the Roman Empire have for requiring such a thing?
As history, the Nativity of Luke is problematic on these levels.
Where do Matthew and Luke agree? Jesus was conceived of a virgin named Mary and born in Bethlehem, then found his way to Nazareth, which is where he grew up.
Was the census a part of that history? Not if Matthew is right. Did the Magi find him in Bethlehem (as Matthew VERY strongly implies) while he was a toddler? Maybe, but it makes no sense if Luke is right. Luke gives us no clue whatsoever of a return visit from Nazareth back to Bethlehem to rendezvous with the Magi while Jesus is a toddler. And Matthew gives no clue whatsoever that after Herod sends the Magi to Bethlehem, they follow the star... to Nazareth. It's not what Matthew says, and it's dishonest to force Matthew to say it.
These conflicts are not "apparent contradictions." They are flat-out errors, and it is nothing short of entertaining to see the mental gymnastics that we have to go through to harmonize the clearly contradictory accounts.
We would not accept the proposed harmonization if it were to be presented to explain an "apparent" discrepancy in the Book of Mormon. We would call it out as an actual error, and in my opinion, it is nothing short of dishonest to apply a double standard, accepting a harmonization for the holy book we hold dear knowing we would reject it for another so-called holy book.
Useful sort of article. Actually I'd never considered it.
What I have considered, and this is a bit off topic but not irrelevant, is that if Joseph had to travel - anywhere - to be censused, then so did his father (and possibly mother) and his brothers (and wives?) and who knows how many other hangers-on. What about Mary's parents, where were they from? They also are supposed to be in the same lineage, so wouldn't her father also be in the entourage?
What a vast number of people on the move!!!
(You'd think there might be some sort of swap-a-house for a few months, while everyone was moving about the country to their different places of origin) (Oh wait, pre-internet...)
And surely, surely, Mary's mother would wish to be with her heavily pregnant daughter as she was about to give birth to her first child? Or some of the wives of the brothers? Would Mary really chose as midwife the innkeeper's wife or some random woman she just came across? Or did she expect the angel Gabriel or a midwife angel to materialise at just the right moment?
So in this "stable" / caravanserai we have not just J&M but at least his parents, perhaps hers, a load of brothers (and their wives? and their kids?) quite a crowd. No wonder there was no room in the inn! But maybe in a nice big stable area, all of them could have space to move around and yet still stay together. With plenty of help for the new mother.
Get rid of the schmaltzy idea of a lonely couple with naught but a donkey out in the savage wilds. Or two kids and a baby emitting light rays (halo) and mooing cows and whatever. There were loads of people present.
When you think of the logistics of everyone having to travel to their ancestral home to take part in a census (why, for Pete's sake, WHY would any census taker require such a thing????), it becomes very difficult to fathom. We, of course, only think of Joseph and Mary doing this. But if Luke's description is right, everyone had to do it! And for what? So the Romans can have a record of where your great-great-grandparents once lived? I don't care if the census is for population purposes, tax purposes or what have you: the whole idea of a census that requires you to leave your home is pointless.
I don't know what Luke's point is, but this is a big problem, because it looks like he's contriving a way to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Matthew avoids this problem altogether by placing them in Bethlehem to begin with. No explanation. They're just there. Matthew's story explains, in the end, how they came to settle in Nazareth. Nazareth is the end of the story in Matthew. It's the beginning of the story in Luke.
If Luke is mistaken about them living in Nazareth in the first place, the accounts become a bit easier to harmonize. Luke leaves out the visit of the Magi and the Egyptian sojourn because they're not important to his story. Matthew leaves out the shepherds because they're not important to HIS story. Otherwise, there's very, very little conflict -- IF you allow Luke to be mistaken about this whole census thing and the timing of the holy family's residence in Nazareth. Luke knows the Nativity story ends there. He is mistaken in believing it begins there.
But we're not allowed to even think such a thing if the gospels are inerrant.
Wallace's proposed solution is, I think even he would agree, a dodge.
In conclusion, facile solutions do not come naturally to Luke 2:2. This does not, of course, mean that Luke erred. In agreement with Schürmann, Marshall “warns against too easy acceptance of the conclusion that Luke has gone astray here; only the discovery of new historical evidence can lead to a solution of the problem.”
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
30
8
11
9
Popular Days
Sep 18
16
Sep 19
13
Sep 14
11
Sep 17
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 30 posts
WordWolf 8 posts
Steve Lortz 11 posts
waysider 9 posts
Popular Days
Sep 18 2013
16 posts
Sep 19 2013
13 posts
Sep 14 2013
11 posts
Sep 17 2013
9 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
I'm giving this a good, long think. it doesn't warrant a "shoot from the hip" reply. Either you're correct, or you're not. If you're not correct, and I reply with something cogent, but it's unpopu
chockfull
I know I have to be wrong about this because I look at this too simply. God inspired Luke to write a historical account, and to communicate along with the facts a unique spiritual perspective. Luke
Raf
That's a whole different can of worms. I did not intend to address the believability of certain Bible stories (talking snakes, talking donkeys, a man who loses strength because of a haircut). Whole different can of worms.
I intended only to talk about two stories that disagree irreconcilably on a given point. I'm talking about Paul swearing up and down that he did not do exactly what Acts records him doing. Somebody's wrong there. I'm talking about Matthew saying Joseph and Mary didn't take up residence in Nazareth until after the sojourn in Egypt, while Luke tells us they lived in Nazareth first, then traveled to Bethlehem, then Jerusalem, then back to Nazareth while Christ was still days old.
Not apparent contradictions; actual errors.
And one of the things TWI excelled at was taking these bizarre efforts at reconciling conflicting accounts and making OTHER people look dishonest for failing to engage in this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
The stories about Peter denying Jesus make a whole lot more sense when you just recognize that the gospel writers got the main point right but differed on the minor details, for a host of reasons. By making God the selector of each word in the Bible, TWI robs the Bible of the ability to contradict itself. Then TWI comes swooping in to the rescue. We can resolve all these contradictions! (No, you can't. You can only claim to).
TWI is, of course, not alone in this.
When the letter to Timothy says all scripture is given by inspiration of God, it is not referring to itself. There is no reason to think it is referring to itself. There is no reason to think it was discussing the gospel of John or the Revelation or I and II Peter or most other books of the New Testament, many of which had not yet been written.
That is what I mean when I say the Bible lacks the sense of self-awareness to refer to itself as God's Word. Paul, in I Corinthians, draws very clear distinctions separating when he is referring to a commandment of the Lord and when he is speaking as Paul. If it's ALL God's Word, the distinction makes no sense at all. At all.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Interesting point.
Care to expand on it when you get a chance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What are we to make of these verses? Is this God's advice? Where does it say it's God's advice? It's explicitly not God's advice. It's explicitly Paul's advice. Now, it's good advice. God wouldn't disagree. God wouldn't disagree with a mom telling her kid to look both ways before crossing the street, but that doesn't make her advice the God-breathed Word! Paul gives us some good advice here. Take it, and cool. Don't take it, and that's cool too. You haven't sinned.
The point is that the advice Paul gives is declared in the Bible to NOT be God's Word.
This is a real logical conundrum. Everything in the Bible is God's Word. Something in the Bible declares itself to not be God's Word. It is God's Word that something in the Bible that is explicitly addressed to believers is not God's Word.
Only by forcing the equation The Bible = God's Word do we have a problem. Eliminate that equation, and there IS no conundrum. Some of Paul's advice is a direct commandment of the Lord. Some of it is not. Sometimes he makes it obvious. Most times he does not -- what he writes is presumed to be of God, although nowhere does he state that what he is writing is God-breathed. "God showed me these truths" is very different from "God is making sure I use this particular preposition because if I use any other word your whole Bible will fall to pieces."
Some other "that's Paul's words, not God's Word" items should be obvious. I am as certain as I could possibly be that God does not want me to wait for Tychicus to show up at my door or my church to tell me everything or to encourage me with the latest news about Paul's well-being (Ephesians 6:21-22). I am absolutely certain that I did not send gifts to Paul via our mutual friend Epaphroditus (Philippians 4:18). Colossians 4:7-17 make perfect, perfect sense as Paul writing to people he knows, and no sense at all as divinely inspired scripture with a purpose and meaning for my life. It is not "God's Word." It's a dude writing a letter to a specific group of people and adding personal touches. A lot of what he writes is applicable to any Christian, anywhere, anytime. But some of it is clearly not.
When I say the Bible lacks the self-awareness to consider itself God's Word, this is what I'm talking about. Paul doesn't know he's writing Scripture. He thinks he's writing a letter. If he knew he was writing Scripture, it's hard to imagine he would include the personal touches. It would be like me writing, knowing I am writing The Holy and Eternal Word of the Living God, and using the last few lines to say "Yo! Shout out to my homeboys in the Boogie Down Bronx! Yeah boyeeeeeee!" Who would do that?
Just some (doctrinal) thoughts.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
You've lost me. Here he's specifically saying "i give this command (not I but the Lord) He's stating that this isn't his idea, the Lord commanded.The last sentence he stipulates that what he's said is his opinion.....not a commandment of the Lord.
Did I misunderstand your idea about Scripture? Here is seems that Paul is marking out 2 places which are commandments and one which isn't.
Edited by krysLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: The Bible never actually declares itself to be without error or contradiction. That's an assertion made by PFAL about the Bible, not an assertion made by the Bible itself.
Luke 1:3 - It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto the in order, most excellent Theophilus.
Where did he get that perfect understanding? Where's God in your suppositions? You're right back where VP was in the 40s. Didn't think the words 'holy bible' should be on the cover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In my suppositions, God doesn't make mistakes. Man does. The Bible has mistakes. The mistakes cannot be attributed to God. They can only be attributed to man. But they are actual errors in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Please research the words "perfect understanding" in Luke 1:3. It does not say in Greek what it says in English, methinks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Krys, referring specifically to the selection of scripture we have quoted, Paul marks out two things he wrote which are not commandments of the Lord and one thing that is.
If God wanted to say "I advise, but do not command" he could have done so very easily. That is not what Paul writes. Paul specifically marks out when he is writing a commandment of the Lord. Had he thought of his own writing as Scripture , there would be no need for him to do that, and it would be unfathomable that he would inject his own advice in the middle of God's commandment. Makes perfect sense in a letter. Makes no sense in a Scripture .
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"Inerrancy" of the Bible was never an issue until the 1800s. The idea of inerrancy was a reaction to the "higher criticism" (source criticism, textual criticism, etc.) that was spreading from German to English to American seminaries from 1810 onwards, and to advances in geological knowledge.
The higher criticism began with Schleiermacher at the founding of the University of Berlin. He wanted a theology department but the government didn't. In order to get a theology department, he had to promise that it would be "scientific." Now source criticism, textual criticism, etc. are legitimate forms for analyzing ANY literature, and they are also legitimate for analyzing the Bible. Schleiermacher's problem was that the science of the 1800s held ALL supernatural activity to be impossible, Therefore, what became known as liberal theology had to deny that ANY supernatural activity recorded in the Bible was possible, and had to be explained in natural terms, principles recognized by classical Newtonian mechanics.
The Fundamentalists reacted with inerrancy, which totally missed the issue. but what else could they do? It wasn't until about 1925 that Niels Bohr developed quantum mechanics, which supercedes the Newtonian system and DOES allow for the reality of the "supernatural."
The idea of inerrancy is as relevant today as buggy whips.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Even if that verse does refer to "God Breathed" referring to scripture, that still does not mean that is an instruction to mankind to employ what Ralph Waldo Emerson writes as "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and leap to the conclusion that therefore according to man's logic it can never have one iota of contradiction.
Look at Proverbs even - "Answer a fool according to his folly" and "Answer not a fool according to his folly"
To me "God breathed" just means "inspirational". Not an instruction to take apart the human lung system to dissect what breathing really means and then construct a Tower of Babel religion based on that all with human-based logical fallacies resembling Dana Carvey's comedy routine "Squatting Monkeys Tell No Lies".
It's all just how shall I say "a bit much" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Piggybacking off what Chockfull is saying:
There are a number of issues at work here.
First, did the writer of I Timothy intend to include as "God-breathed" the scriptures of the New Testament? Did he intend to include the very letter he was writing? Assuming the answer to both questions to be "yes," as johniam and all inerrantists no doubt hold, the next question is "what does God-breathed mean?" We can ignore the first question and focus on the second.
PFAL gives us a very specific answer to what it means for scripture to be God-breathed. Explicitly and implicitly, PFAL and its related works hold that God-breathed scripture will be perfect, will have no errors or contradictions. That's why, in addressing whether PFAL is God-breathed, we are entitled to hold PFAL up to its own standard. Hence, "Actual Errors in PFAL."
Having ruled out PFAL as God-breathed according to its own definition, we come to a different question: Does THE BIBLE pass PFAL's standard of what it means to be God-breathed? I think the honest answer to that is "no." It is not inerrant. It has flat-out errors [for example, in Exodus 1:11, the Hebrews are credited with building the city of Rameses for the Egyptians. That city was not built until hundreds of years after the Exodus took place. This is not an "apparent contradiction." It's a colossal blunder. In Genesis, Abraham comes from Ur of the Chaldeans. This is a problem on two levels -- The Chaldeans did not have control of Ur in the time that Abraham lived... and they did not have control of Ur in the time that MOSES lived. Let that sink in: it means whoever called Abraham's land Ur of the Chaldeans, it wasn't Moses. That would be like Christopher Columbus writing about Washington D.C.)
So the Bible, Old Testament and New, simply does not live up to PFAL's standard of what it means to be God-breathed.
However, does it live up to its own standard of what it means to be God-breathed? Does it even set such a standard?
The concept of inerrancy forces the Bible to conform to a standard it does not set for itself. It is unfair to judge the Bible based on this standard.
If PFAL is right about what it means to be God-breathed, then the Bible is not God-breathed. The Bible is only God-breathed if PFAL is wrong about what that term even means.
My opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull,
I found an interesting approach to the "answer a fool according to his folly" problem that, in my opinion, answers the issue adequately and removes it as a contradiction.
The context of the above quote can be found here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You're really shackling your understanding by relying solely on the
phraseology of a book written in 1611, when your own understanding is
21st century. Even if it was all translated perfectly, you wouldn't think
it meant what it meant to readers 500 years ago.
That's not even addressing isolating what it said from its context.
Luke 1:1-4
King James Version (KJV)
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Does "from the beginning" refer to Genesis 1:1's timeframe?
No, the context indicates it's referring to the beginning of JESUS.
The context of Luke 1:3 indicates "perfect understanding of all things
from the very first" does not mean
"when I was born, I understood everything", nor does it mean
"when I first heard of Jesus, I completely understood everything about
his identity and mission."
It means-and this is not difficult to see-
that Luke is saying that Luke was in on things from early on, and understood
them as they unfolded. He's not showing up decades later, trying to
figure out what happened. He was there for some things, and spoke to
eyewitnesses shortly thereafter for other things.
He had a "COMPLETE" understanding of the story that unfolded,
NOT an ERROR-FREE understanding of all of Scripture.
Frankly, you're supporting Raf's claim by bringing up that verse.
It's clear Luke's saying that the intention to write Luke's account-
the entire Gospel of Luke- was initiated by LUKE.
The idea that you're claiming the words say-having taken them from their
context- melts away when looking at how other versions dealt with the
same verses.
Luke 1:1-4
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Introduction
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
New International Version (NIV)
Introduction
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke 1:1-4
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
1 Many people have tried to tell the story of what God has done among us. 2 They wrote what we had been told by the ones who were there in the beginning and saw what happened. 3 So I made a careful study of everything and then decided to write and tell you exactly what took place. Honorable Theophilus, 4 I have done this to let you know the truth about what you have heard.
The NASB, in particular, is a word-for-word translation.
You made 2 mistakes there. You ignored the context, which is akin to
quoting Scripture and concluding "there is no God."
You also relied entirely on 1611 English- and never bothered to check the
Greek, or Aramaic or whatever you think it came from. The modern versions
all came DIRECTLY from the Greek texts, so it makes sense to at least
check their contents- say, what your interlinear says- before deciding the
archaic KJV phraseology is accurate. That's how people get "fill" to
mean "replenish" when the original said "fill", then write their theology
around the idea it said "replenish" rather than "fill." That's how
someone can read "throughly" in a KJV and make a big deal about how it
meant something different than "thoroughly"-when the original meant
"thoroughly" and that was identical in meaning in 1611 but not in the
20th or 21st century.
Raf's making very different points than you're objecting to.
He's certainly not in the same position of a minister who preaches
weekly from the pulpit and doesn't believe the words "Holy Bible."
I'm carefully noting what IS and is NOT being said. You're not objecting
to what's been posted, you're objecting to something different and
THINKING it's what's been posted. Please don't do that.
I don't see the Proverbs thing as any sort of contradiction.
It's a perfectly legitimate figure of speech-and used today- to change
the usage of a phrase when talking. It's fine so long as the hearers
understand you.
You don't answer a fool THE SAME WAY he's raving.
You answer a fool according to the magnitude of his foolishness.
What it would mean to say "God breathed" is an interesting avenue of
discussion that clearly belongs in Doctrinal and should be discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I think the whole thing belongs in doctrinal. While my original point may have been "how did TWI handle this one contradiction? (apparent or real)," I just don't see any way of discussing this issue without falling into a doctrinal discussion.
Anyone disagree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Moved. I hope everyone agrees that this is not an example of me moderating myself, but if anyone has a problem with it, please let me/us know.
Signed, Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
While we're here, can anyone dig up for me how Wierwille deals with the problem of Luke 2:2 in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed? I don't want to say what the problem is at this point. I just want to see how Wierwille handled that verse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
On page 201 of JCOPS goes into a several page song and dance about Luke 2:2. The upshot is that Wierwille posits two separate taxings, one in 3 BC and on in AD 6-7. Wierwille goes on to write that Quirinius was in charge of both, even though he didn't become governor until AD 6.
Wierwille concludes that Luke 2:2 should be translated "This first registration took place when Quirinius was on special assignment in Syria."
He placed special emphasis on the word "first," which I haven't checked in the Greek, but I might. I know one of the things I would look at would be the tenses of the verbs. I may do that later this evening.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I recommend The Problem of Luke 2:2 by Daniel Wallace, a bona fide Greek scholar and inerrantist who handles that verse with some pretty humble integrity. Easy to find online.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I read Wallace's essay. It seems reasonable, but I'd have to do a lot more studying before I would venture to either confirm or deny it.
One thing I find frustratingly non-sensical about the inerrancy position is that if we can't make literal sense of ANY TINY LITTLE DETAIL, then the WHOLE BIBLE falls to pieces. People are taught that as little kids, and when they grow up and find out the Bible is not as simplistic as they were taught, too often they throw the whole thing out and become athiests...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I believe Wallace because given his bias, one would expect him to reach the opposite conclusion. He rather obviously knows a thing or two about Greek grammar (I mean, he literally wrote the book!). He could very easily take the position that "first" should mean "before," and everyone would assume he's right. Why embrace the position that undermines your own theology unless integrity demands it?
I concede, however, that I have no personal basis for agreeing with him. When you're not an expert in something, you rely on the expertise of others. Comparing Wierwille's expertise to Wallace's on this matter: it's not even close. Wierwille bends over backwards and literally invents history to make this verse fit. Wallace admits that it doesn't fit and, as we used to say, holds the question in abeyance. It seems that, given the facts, it's the only honest position he can take. I admire him for that.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For those who may be lost:
Luke 2:2 says that the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is that Quirinius didn't become governor of Syria until 6 CE, long after the birth of Jesus. This has been recognized as a problem for the accuracy of the Luke account for centuries. We know Herod was alive when Jesus was born (Matthew makes no sense at all if he was not). According to Wierwille, Herod dies in 1 B.C. (historical scholars are more inclined to offer 4 BC as the date of his death, but whichever is correct, it's long before 6 CE). So how do we reconcile the problem?
Wierwille joins inerrantists who jump through hoops to get Luke 2:2 to say something it is not saying. Maybe the census was "before" Quirinius was governor of Syria. That would work if the word used was "before." But it's not. Maybe Quirinius was governor of Syria more than once (he wasn't). Wierwille proposes this translation: "This first registration took place when Quirinius was on special assignment in Syria."
Special assignment? Where's the evidence? There is none. And let me add, coming from the teacher who lambasted Eve for omitting a word, adding a word and changing a word so that we no longer have the Word, this proposed translation stinks of spectacular hypocrisy. The verse says what it says. Sorry.
Couple this with the fact that there is no historical evidence for a census that would require people to travel from where they live (which is the whole POINT of a census) to where their ancestors lived centuries earlier (huh?). What possible need would the Roman Empire have for requiring such a thing?
As history, the Nativity of Luke is problematic on these levels.
Where do Matthew and Luke agree? Jesus was conceived of a virgin named Mary and born in Bethlehem, then found his way to Nazareth, which is where he grew up.
Was the census a part of that history? Not if Matthew is right. Did the Magi find him in Bethlehem (as Matthew VERY strongly implies) while he was a toddler? Maybe, but it makes no sense if Luke is right. Luke gives us no clue whatsoever of a return visit from Nazareth back to Bethlehem to rendezvous with the Magi while Jesus is a toddler. And Matthew gives no clue whatsoever that after Herod sends the Magi to Bethlehem, they follow the star... to Nazareth. It's not what Matthew says, and it's dishonest to force Matthew to say it.
These conflicts are not "apparent contradictions." They are flat-out errors, and it is nothing short of entertaining to see the mental gymnastics that we have to go through to harmonize the clearly contradictory accounts.
We would not accept the proposed harmonization if it were to be presented to explain an "apparent" discrepancy in the Book of Mormon. We would call it out as an actual error, and in my opinion, it is nothing short of dishonest to apply a double standard, accepting a harmonization for the holy book we hold dear knowing we would reject it for another so-called holy book.
Again, my opinion.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe there were two governors named Quirinius. It's a really common name,here in Ohio.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Article Raf refers to
Useful sort of article. Actually I'd never considered it.
What I have considered, and this is a bit off topic but not irrelevant, is that if Joseph had to travel - anywhere - to be censused, then so did his father (and possibly mother) and his brothers (and wives?) and who knows how many other hangers-on. What about Mary's parents, where were they from? They also are supposed to be in the same lineage, so wouldn't her father also be in the entourage?
What a vast number of people on the move!!!
(You'd think there might be some sort of swap-a-house for a few months, while everyone was moving about the country to their different places of origin) (Oh wait, pre-internet...)
And surely, surely, Mary's mother would wish to be with her heavily pregnant daughter as she was about to give birth to her first child? Or some of the wives of the brothers? Would Mary really chose as midwife the innkeeper's wife or some random woman she just came across? Or did she expect the angel Gabriel or a midwife angel to materialise at just the right moment?
So in this "stable" / caravanserai we have not just J&M but at least his parents, perhaps hers, a load of brothers (and their wives? and their kids?) quite a crowd. No wonder there was no room in the inn! But maybe in a nice big stable area, all of them could have space to move around and yet still stay together. With plenty of help for the new mother.
Get rid of the schmaltzy idea of a lonely couple with naught but a donkey out in the savage wilds. Or two kids and a baby emitting light rays (halo) and mooing cows and whatever. There were loads of people present.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When you think of the logistics of everyone having to travel to their ancestral home to take part in a census (why, for Pete's sake, WHY would any census taker require such a thing????), it becomes very difficult to fathom. We, of course, only think of Joseph and Mary doing this. But if Luke's description is right, everyone had to do it! And for what? So the Romans can have a record of where your great-great-grandparents once lived? I don't care if the census is for population purposes, tax purposes or what have you: the whole idea of a census that requires you to leave your home is pointless.
I don't know what Luke's point is, but this is a big problem, because it looks like he's contriving a way to get Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Matthew avoids this problem altogether by placing them in Bethlehem to begin with. No explanation. They're just there. Matthew's story explains, in the end, how they came to settle in Nazareth. Nazareth is the end of the story in Matthew. It's the beginning of the story in Luke.
If Luke is mistaken about them living in Nazareth in the first place, the accounts become a bit easier to harmonize. Luke leaves out the visit of the Magi and the Egyptian sojourn because they're not important to his story. Matthew leaves out the shepherds because they're not important to HIS story. Otherwise, there's very, very little conflict -- IF you allow Luke to be mistaken about this whole census thing and the timing of the holy family's residence in Nazareth. Luke knows the Nativity story ends there. He is mistaken in believing it begins there.
But we're not allowed to even think such a thing if the gospels are inerrant.
Wallace's proposed solution is, I think even he would agree, a dodge.
I'll wait.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.