Posted on 02/09/2003 9:52:26 PM PST by restornu
Is The Bible Truly Infallible?
A well meaning, but misinformed Evangelical recently posted on an Internet bulletin board:
"My conclusion that the Bible was indeed still the perfect word of God was based on the following conclusions:
1. The vast overall majority of the 'errors' the Mormons have 'found' the Bible to have are either not really there or make no difference to the tune of 99.995% of them being totally invalidated claims.
2. Even of those that the Mormons would claim to be valid, the vast overall majority of those were due to UNDERSTANDABLE and REAL human error and NOT to intentional deception of any kind.
3. The Biblical record is thousands upon thousands of records dating back (some of them) to almost 4000 BC that EVERYONE is trying to find holes in like the Mormons are in order to discount the Bible.
4. The Bible has been 'purged' and burned so many times throughout history that it ain't even funny that the Mormons can not ever publicly publish the original characters of the supposed 'Golden Plates.'
5. And last but not least, every REAL error that exists in the Bible is still openly there for the open examination, consideration, and decision of the reader."
***
So, the question must be asked. "Is the Bible Infallible?" Has it survived the centuries intact and perfect?
Raymond Brown in his nifty book "Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible" notes that the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament were "edited and RESHAPED by an evangelist in the last third of the first century in order to address the spiritual needs of Christian readers he envisaged." (p. 58, my emphasis). In other words, the Gospels are NOT PERFECT, nor are they original, but have been REWRITTEN to match an already preconceived end."
James H. Charlesworth's fine article "From the Philopedia of Jesus to the Misopedia of the Acts of Thomas" in "By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley, Vol. 1, notes that "Jesus' philopedia was SO ALTERED by some second-century Christian groups that it became misopedia. JESUS' OWN TEACHINGS WERE SOMETIMES CHANGED OR EVEN ABANDONED BY THOSE WHO CALLED HIM LORD." (p. 46, my emphasis)
Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" notes that "a group of correctors working at Caesarea entered a large number of alterations into the text of both Old and New Testaments." (p. 46).
"The whole of Matthew's Gospel as far as xxv, 6 is lost, as well as the leaves which originally contained John 6:50-58, 52, and 2 Cor. 4:13-xii, 6." (p. 46).
"Unfortunately the beauty of the original writing has been spoiled by a later corrector..." (p. 47).
"All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors..." (p. 246)
Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism," notes that "There are places where the original text is not so certain..." (p. 16), and that WITHOUT EXCEPTION, "all of the oldest Greek MSS had been corrupted by interpolation..." (p. 149). They go on to note that "The great fault of contemporary NT textual criticism is that IT CANNOT offer us TOTAL CERTAINTY as to the ORIGINAL NT text." (p. 189, my emphasis). They conclude by saying that "Even after scribal errors have been eliminated, "there remains a text of outstanding (though not absolute) purity." (p. 128).
Bart D. Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" pointed out that "scribes occassionally altered the words of their sacred texts to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by Christians who espoused aberrant views." (p. xi), and that "there scribes corrupted their texts for theological reasons..." (p. xii), and that "Scripture was changed to refute antiDocetic tendencies in early Christian circles" (p. 217).
Stanley R. Maveety, "The Glossary in the Rheims New Testament of 1582", in the Journal of English and Germanic Philology VOl. 61, 1962, states that "Tyndale was guilty of DELIBERATELY MISTRANSLATING the Bible in order to conform to Luther doctrine..." (p. 566), and further notes that "The Protestants were guilty of adding words to the scriptures in order to condemn Catholic doctrines" (p. 572)
Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticsm of the Hebrew Bible," tells us that "The Masoretes had preserved a text in the Hebrew Bible, which had already been corrupted!" (p. 9, 28ff), that the "Samaritans added their own theological biases to the scriptures" (p. 19), that "words were added that change the meaning of biblical passages" (pp. 57, 63, 65, 60), and that "Theological concepts of God were ADDED to the scriptures" (p. 127f).
They go on to note that "There is a LARGE SCALE differences between the manuscript witnesses, not minor mere variations" (p. 177), and that "Scribes took the liberty of changing the manuscripts as they felt suited to" (p. 189), adding that "Scribes deliberately altered the contents of the manuscripts and scriptures" (pp. 258, 262, 306, 269, 290) Their following statement sums up the situation very succinctly: "EVERY CHAPTER in the Bible has CHANGES!!!!!!!" (p. 293f)
James A. Sanders article "Understanding the Development of the Biblical Text" in The Dead Sea Scrolls After Forty Years, says that "We ought to start acknowledging the differences in the Bible and quit pretending there are none, and that we ought to realize that there have been differences from the very start of the Bible!" (p. 71).
Emanuel Tov, "The Corrections in the Biblical Texts", in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, says "There have been many different systems of scribal intervention and changing of the scripture!" (pp. 300ff).
P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible", noted that "Parablepsis...frequently resulted in an EXTENSIVE loss of material..." (p. 40ff).
FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
I would have responded more quickly but I keep falling out of my chair everytime I read that. Please, next time ask me if I'm not just sitting down when you blow me away like that, but that I have a firm grasp of the chair as well.
Seriously, if you had a better understanding of what Metzger was saying regarding different standards and colophons, there would be no doubt the piece is biased against what Metzger did say. If FAIR wanted to purposely misrepresent Metzger here they couldn't have done better.
I couldn't help but notice you didn't respond to my question about your education in these textual criticism matters. Realizing we've gone back and forth on this issue in other threads, I keep bringing it up because you don't respond and say things like this:
In context they are still relevant to the question being discussed however, and I think that because the author didn't take the time to point out HOW they are relevant that he leaves himself open to being misunderstood like this.
They are absolutely not relevant because the Metzger quotes are complete misrepresentations. If the author wants to rewrite the piece using in context quotes then perhaps the piece will then have relevance.
The page 47 quote is of the same substance and is more than misleading. Just quoting the entire sentence would have provided some context from which to base the quote. But by just quoting the first half of the sentence it's really obvious FAIR isn't after the truth here.
Here is what FAIR has said regarding Metzger:
The quote on page 246 is one sentence of the conclusion of chapter 8 (The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism), a 40 page chapter and is another misrepresentation of Metzger. It would be very time consuming to explain 40 pages of the practice of NT textual criticism. I definitely recommend you read the book. In saying that I just realized the book is probably advanced as a first book. Metzger's Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, An Introduction to Palaeography would be a better start. But even that book requires knowledge of Greek or an instructor to explain what is being said. This is just more of what I mean by not understanding what is being said - there's much to be known before understanding Metzger's Text of the New Testament, let alone a sentence pulled out of context here and there.
Here's page 246 with the quote in question in bold.
By way of conclusion, let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no one group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual doubt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known.The immediate context preceeding this summary is about the variances in the name of Paul's letter to the Colossians, and what spelling should be used depending on what manuscripts are used. Before that it's about manuscripts that spell proper names differently in other books of the Bible and those between variances in the same book. And before that it's about 70 or 72 men referenced in Numbers 11 and 1 Kings 10, and which manuscripts use which number. These are the typical variances found and referenced going backwards through chapter 8. None of which contain any issues of theology, which I have yet to find.
So once again the FAIR quote tries to paint the manuscripts in the worst possible light which is obviously not Metzger's intent. If FAIR wants to make a point they should show some egregious errors of theological importance, not pull sentences out of context regarding orthographical variances.
One other issue that I've been meaning to get back to. There was some reference to 500,000 errors in the Bible (in another post). Well, if you have 10,000 manuscripts and each manuscript contains the same 50 spelling variances, there are your 500,000 "errors." Such posts bring nothing regarding the truth to the table.
There are indeed some on my ignore list. But we shouldn't "attack" someone because of their religious beliefs. If we stick to the Bible, textual criticism, the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, there should be nothing but healthy disagreement. Grig and I are talking about FAIR's very biased article against the accuracy of the Bible. According to the first post:
FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.As I see it, that disclaimer offers a great deal of freedom in discussing FAIR's horrible practices of ripping quotes out of context. As I'll continue to demonstrate, this FAIR article is most definitely biased against the Bible.
I will not be emailing FAIR. It's my experience that emailing someone who puts out something so wrong is just a waste of time. Plus I certainly don't want to give someone like that my email address. Please let me know what you hear back.
Right, I didn't respond to that. I want my arguments examined on their own merits since that is the way I examine others arguments. I'm sorry to deprive you of something that clearly is very important to you, but you will just have to live with that.
Thanks, but you're really depriving yourself. As I see it, what you're telling me when you don't tell me what you've read, is that you haven't read anything on the subject. And if you haven't read anything on the subject, you're not going to understand the issues which you appear to demonstrate below. You're also going to find it difficult for me to take you seriously. That may not make any difference to you, but it will most definitely affect the way I communicate with you. The valid point of the brain surgeon analogy comes to mind.
The author should have taken the time to put them in context and explain how they fit into a reasoned argument for his position. The quotes come off in a way that misrepresents the author because he did not do so, yet if I were writing such a paper I would find those quotes (used in context) as usefull.
But FAIR's points don't come close to addressing the Evangelicals first 2 points listed in post #1:
Paul tells us the Bible is God-breathed - that's an interesting study in itself. When an evangelical says the Bible is infallible they are referring to theological statements. At least everyone I know that makes that statement is implying just that.
In fact the quote from p246 makes the authors point even better when in context than when just that small part is used IMHO. It is not reasonable to suggest that the Bible is perfect and complete. It's probably as good as we can get it given what we have to work with, but not perfect and not complete.
I almost didn't scan the page because I thought you might make that statement as too little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But I can't let a lack of knowledge stop me from posting the context. What you do with it is up to you. The previous 39 pages describing orthographical variances have no theological significance. That's key to the evangelicals position.
I am not aware of this post so I'll leave you to discuss it with the person who posted it.
I only mentioned it as I believe the thread has been deleted. I just had to make the correction.
I notice you felt you didn't want to share you address so you decided not to inquire. There are other avenues of getting e mail address that would not exposed your personal e mail like Yahoo, or hotmail etc.
My best thoughts to you scripter!
rest
Much of Israel’s story revolves around the people’s failure to remember their beginnings and the message of the Law and to adhere to its recorded covenants—even though the Law had been written and placed in the most sacred of all places, the ark of the covenant. There were a few faithful who remembered: Samuel “let none of [God’s] words fall to the ground.” (1 Sam. 3:19.) But the obedience of the people generally was not nearly so great. Not only did they forget the words of the book, but they also forgot the book itself, which had been transferred to the temple along with the ark of the covenant.
The Babylonian captivity cut the Israelites off even further from the book by cutting them off from their temple and its sacred instruments. When some of them returned many years later, among the foremost happenings associated with their freedom was the reading of the sacred words. Ezra, the scribe, was asked to read to them again that which had become only dim memory. The story is very touching: the people gathered “as one man” to hear; the reading was “from the morning until midday,” and “the ears of all the people were attentive.” They wept, they worshipped, and they rejoiced. (See Neh. 8:1-12.)
So significant was this rereading of the Law that Israel’s faith became known thereafter as “the religion of the Book.”
I couldn't find where the evangelical stated the Bible is perfect and complete. What the evangelical is reported to have said is the Bible is the perfect word of God, with which I would agree. To anyone familiar with textual criticism, that implies variances do exist, but certainly no thelogical significant variances. So quoting Metzger as an non-LDS scholar who disagrees that the Bible is the perfect Word of God is definitely misrepresenting Metzger. That's yet another nail in the coffin to the FAIR article.
I can't help but wonder what method that person used to identify what 'errors the Mormons have found'. I assume that they did a comparison between the JST and KJV, but the JST was not finished, so it only can hightlight a portion of the errors, and most the differences are in the addition of things missing from the KJV, with a smaller % of the changes being of corrections to what is already there.
I can understand errors in the KJV as the manuscripts behind it are suspect and late. Metzger gets into that in chapter 3 after discussing the highlights of the history of the text, Metzger says on page 106:
Thus from what was more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb'), there arose the designation 'Textus Receptus', or commonly received, standard text. Partly because of this catchword the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected minuscule manuscripts, and in a dozen of passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness.I tend to rely on the older and more reliable manuscripts for corrections to the KJV and not rely on any one source. The manuscripts behind the NIV and NASB are older and more reliable. The NIV is great for daily reading or quoting with the NASB superior to study. But for me and my house we use the modern English sentence structure of the NIV with help from the Greek, and a wide variety of commentaries, culture and mannerisms, dictionaries, concordances, etc.
Several of those corrections make a significant difference, (as some have loudly pointed out in other threads) and brushing off the additions as 'not really there' or 'totally invalidated' just avoids the issue. It is not so much our claim that the Bible is translated wrongly from the existing manuscripts, it is that somewhere between the original and those manuscripts that errors and deletions were made. Pointing to errors and deletions (omissions) in the existing manuscripts establishes that our claim is not impossible. The how, when and why those changes were introduced don't really concern us.
No, not impossible, but from the available evidence, highly unlikely. You don't really need to be concerned with the variants as there are none of theological significance.
In the end, it's a matter of faith either way. You either have faith that God made sure enough manuscripts were found to result in a perfect Bible, or you have faith that God called a prophet and restored what men caused to become lost. Perhaps it's best we just leave it at that.
My position is that what we have has been miraculously preserved over millenia as demonstrated from the manuscripts. Having seen probably every "error" that has been presented and after years of studying about the manuscripts and papyri, I can say with confidence that no variants of theological significance exist. Therefore I see no need for a prophet to tell me something different than what I can see for myself.
Why thank you, rest. I must admit, I can't remember finding anything you said personally offensive.
I notice you felt you didn't want to share you address so you decided not to inquire. There are other avenues of getting e mail address that would not exposed your personal e mail like Yahoo, or hotmail etc.
Thanks. That's not really my primary concern. Because I'm familiar with the issues I can look at the quotes and pretty much say they're out of context without cracking a book. I sent the URL to a friend of mine who as some of the books I don't and he said the references by Colwell, Ehrman, Charlesworth and Sanders are also out of context. Grig said the article is poorly written. I'd go one further and say because most if not all of the quotes are used out of context, the article appears to deliberately mislead. Writing FAIR would be a complete waste of my time and efforts.
LDS Criticisms ~ Bible Infallible?
The title of one fairly recent anti-Mormon book is , God's Word, Final, Infallible and Forever: Compelling Evidence for the Bible's Inspiration and Preservation (McElveen, 1985). Author Floyd McElveen argues that the Bible is "without error" (ibid., 7) and that a "prophet was considered false if his prophecies were not 100 percent accurate at all times.... One false prophecy is all it takes to reveal a false prophet" (ibid., 31).
The Bible never claims that it is inerrant. This belief is a fabrication by those who have closed the doors of revelation. If no more revelation is to be received then the Bible must be inerrant because the Bible and tradition would be the only source of authority.
1- Is the Bible inerrant? Infallible?
2- 2 Chronicles 2:2 says that it took 153,600 men to build Solomon's Temple.
3- 1 Kings 5:13 says that the labor force was only 30,000 men working in three shifts of 10,000 each.
3- According to the Bible, the earth is flat (see Isaiah 11:12, Jeremiah 49:32, Revelation 7:1, Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 28:24, etc.).
4- Moses claimed that the hare "cheweth the cud" (Lev. 11:6)-- they don't.
5- How many angels were at Christ's tomb (see Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and John 10:12)?
6- Matthew wrote that the title on the cross above Jesus read: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:37), while Mark claimed that the title simply read: "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26). Luke, however, recorded that the title read: "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38), and John claimed that the title read: "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).
What about prophetic infallibility?
1- Does one false prophetic statement reveal a false prophet?
2- Is Moses a false prophet because the "everlasting" covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:1-14) was done away with in New Testament times.
3- The prophet Jeremiah was so upset about his failed prophecies that he called God a liar (Jer. 15:18).
4- Jeremiah predicted that King Zedekiah would "die in peace: and with the burning of ...odours" (Jer. 34:5).
5- Instead, however, Zedekiah's children were slaughtered, his eyes were put out, and he died in prison.
6- Jonah was commanded twice to go cry repentance to the people of Nineveh. Jonah then prophesied that the city would be overthrown in forty days (Jonah 3:4).
7- The people of Nineveh repented, however, and God spared them.
8- Jonah was angry with God that his prophecy and not been fulfilled, and the Lord needed to rebuke Jonah for his anger.
The list of Bible errors & contradictions as well as incorrect prophetic biblical utterances can be multiplied, but I believe the above examples demonstrate that the Bible is not inerrant, nor infallible, and neither are God's prophets.
Michael R. Ash
Restornu, do YOU agree with this statement? YES / NO
Not even Metzger can perform textual criticism on something like that! There's little I can say if someone wants to believe biblical text was deleted but has no physical evidence to support that it existed in the first place.
Raymond Brown, James H. Charlesworth, Bruce M. Metzger, Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Bart D. Ehrman, Stanley R. Maveety, James A. Sanders, Emanuel Tov, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.
Just WHO are these people?
Just because some write 'nifty' books and others 'fine articles', just WHY should we believe them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.