On Inerrancy: An Open Response To mikespeir
Posted in Bible, Criticism, Daylight Atheism, Responses on | 6 minutes | 11 Comments →
The following is my latest response to commenter mikespeir at DaylightAtheism regarding a post titled On Inerrancy. I was unable to post it because the host, Ebonmuse, decided the thread was "going nowhere" and closed comments. I disagree, and the discussion need not be limited to myself and mikespeir. As always on my blog, anyone with anything to say is more than welcomed to get in there and speak up. I've no fear of dissenting opinion and feel the way to reach common ground is often to allow both sides to exhaust themselves.
mikespeir,
Let's clarify a bit, for it seems we're discussing several things and going over one another's heads. At a minimum, we're discussing the original dispensations, and the Bible as it stands today, it seems.
…there's no evidence to substantiate the claim that the Masorectics were inspired in the original. Why, then, should I believe they were? Far from undermining our position, this solidifies it. If you're going to pull these kinds of shenanigans, I'm going to lose interest in this discussion in a hurry.
I'm not saying you should believe they were. You say we have no evidence as to the errancy or inerrancy of the original dispensations, correct? I agree. Since we don't, in this respect, neither of us has any evidence to lean on when making a claim that the Bible is or is not inspired. It's not a shenanigan, it's that there's simply no evidence, and when I see zero evidence, my brain returns a NULL value – not true, not false – but NULL. I suppose in that sense I split from traditional rationalism, which typically presupposes a value of false to all claims without evidence. But I say, no evidence? No reason for presupposition.
As to the Bible as it stands today, you claim it is not reliable, and you offer Luke 21:36:
"Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man." (NIV)
To me, the discrepancy between the words isn't even that severe. If one is to escape all that is about to happen, has not one accounted for as worthy? In the context of the rapture, are not all who escape considered worthy by God? I realize you think I should be really worried about this, but I don't know what else to say. All I'm saying is that if Luke 21:36 is your strongest argument, I'm not that worried. For example, as Ebonmuse took a stab at and I've addressed here, if you could show that the Bible says (x) = (-x) in the matter of salvation, I would be worried.
I still don't see you making an attempt to convince me I shouldn't take the exemplary problem of Luke 21:36 as evidence that the Bible is unreliable. Why not? Don't you have an argument?
Correct, I refuse to convince because I'm wise enough to know I can't, and it's not my place to tell you how you should view the Bible, for the same reasons I wouldn't try to convince you that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream. Incidentally, of course I have an argument. I said textual evolution is horrible evidence against theopneustos, and you asked me to explain. Again, if I tell you a perfectly true story, and you botch it, does such entail that the original story I told you is errant? Or would you be the errant one? Copyist error does not entail lack of theopneustos.
Of course it's not. You have no evidence!
Yet as regards the original dispensation, neither do you, correct? So how does your subjective opinion outweigh mine here? Actually, the difference has already been identified. You side with traditional rationalism by rejecting that for which there is no evidence. I take a more objective approach, and assign a value of NULL to claims that lack evidence. I think this is a big part of our disagreement here.
But in light of the obvious reality that you can't show a scrap of evidence for theopneustos, it's pretty much what I'm left with.
That's your opinion. There are things in the Bible that convince me of theopneustos. I do not expect them to convince everyone, just as I do not expect everyone to think chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.
That tinkering with the texts over the ages such that their meanings are left in doubt is easily good enough to show that they're not reliable now.
But, can't you see that such is your opinion? I can't refute subjective opinions, but if you can show me true errancy, that's different. Do you have any stronger examples of the Bible's errancy than Luke 21:36? As another example, if the Bible said both that heaven exists and heaven does not exist, I'd be worried. If, as Ebonmuse tried to say, the Bible says both that God will and will not tempt us with evil, I'd be worried. And as I admitted before, the whole thing about the census actually does leave me scratching my head. You seem to think I am impervious to doubt, when in reality such couldn't be further from the truth. Believe me, I tire of hearing myself talk as much if not more than anyone else, and if I didn't have any doubts or if I believed that my position regarding biblical errancy could not be falsified, I wouldn't be wasting anyone's time.
Clearly, God, if he was the source, hasn't bothered to keep them pristine. Was he only interested in presenting perfection to the first writers and their original readers but not to subsequent generations?
See? I hate to say it, but I told you so! As correctly predicted, after all that, your argument reverts to the subjective, "The Bible is not inspired because copyist errors exist, an 0^3 God would not allow that."
And my response is that copyist error does not entail lack of theopneustos, especially when the God in question directly implied that such errors had the capacity to occur. I realize you think I'm dodging and evading and all that, but it is you who has left my response unaddressed.
Again, if someone tells you a true story, and you mistell it, who is errant? You? Or the storyteller?
Paul S
says...Hi cl, I saw you over at DA, and followed the link here. I like your site and hope to add something to the interesting discussions you have here.
To answer your question, “Again, if someone tells you a true story, and you mistell it, who is errant? You? Or the storyteller?”
I would concede that the storyteller would be errant if the true story is mistold. But my feeling is that by making this comparison to the Bible, you are trivializing the importance of the “true story” the Bible is supposed to tell. I mean, we are talking about the directions for eternal life dictated directly by (or inspired by) the Creator of the universe!
Wouldn’t it be impossible to “prove” true errancy when the original manuscripts are unavailable? All we have to go on are the copies of copies of copies, ad nauseum. You’re presupposition is that the Bible is inerrant in the first place because God says it is. Is that not circular reasoning?
cl
says...Paul S,
Thanks for coming by, and I’m sure you’ll likely have many insights I miss.
To clarify – when you say, “I would concede that the storyteller would be errant if the true story is mistold,” you are referring to the original storyteller and not the re-teller, correct? If so, we’re in agreement.
Well, that’s a separate issue altogether, and while I adamantly disagree that I’m trivializing the story, I do agree that the story the Bible purports to truthfully tell is of the utmost importance.
Again, you’re spot-on, but I’ve refuted every argument I’ve ever heard that seeks to cast doubt on the Bible’s alleged error regarding salvation, which is the context you’re now in. For example, Ebonmuse devotes an entire failing essay to this point, dealt with here. Such is the reason I ask mikespeir (or anyone) if the minor discrepancy between Textus Receptus Luke 21:36 and Westcott-Hort Luke 21:36 is the best argument they have.
Absolutely. Regarding the original dispensation, nobody can prove anything and such undermines Ebonmuse and mikespeir’s argument, as I said, and you seem to agree, that copyist errors do not entail original inerrancy. Also, it refutes the converse claim, that the original is inerrant. I’m not trying to prove that.
Further, you correctly note:
It would be, save for that’s not why I believe the most reliable transcripts of the Bible we have today, though altered and containing bona fide contradictions, to be inerrant (and even that is said with a grain of salt; note my concerns about the census dilemma). God allegedly says lots of things through psychopathic murderers, and I equally question them. The Bible may or may not be inerrant, but my belief that it is inerrant is founded upon loads of evidence suggesting it is, compared to scant evidence suggesting it is not.
Although it’s certainly possible that I’m incorrect, I believe the Bible to be inerrant because, save the aforementioned instance (the census; there may even be others I’m forgetting right now), I’ve not yet heard a convincing case for its errancy. And as with many, many past claims of error in the Bible, I believe the census may also have a favorable resolution.
Paul S
says...I’d like to clarify your position on something:
In your response to False Argument #16, you state that your definition of a contradiction is: (x)+(-x) = contradiction
In your opinion, does contradiction = errancy? In other words, can something be errant but not a contradiction?
For example, take the lineage question of Jesus. Mark and Luke list different genealogies of Jesus. The two genealogies aren’t inversions of each other, just different. In this case, I would say that the genealogies from Mark and Luke aren’t necessarily contradictions, but necessarily do show that the Bible is not inerrant. Does that follow?
cl
says...No comment on the genealogy question specifically, but yes, I will say that although contradiction can and often does entail error, error is not an intrinsic property of contradiction. 2 or more contradictory testimonies may in fact all be 100% true, as with the example about the bank robbery:
Let’s say you and your friend witness a robbery in which there were three robbers. You have a vantage point that obscures the door to the bank. Your friend has a vantage point that obscures his or her view of the getaway vehicle.
Your friend sees all three robbers run out of the bank with the loot and take off down the street, disappearing from his view. Then, after the robbers are beyond your friend’s vantage point, and before the robbers enter your vantage point, one of them gets a bad feeling that the getaway is going to fail, so he ditches his loot and takes off running down an alley. Next, you see two robbers turn the corner and dash for the waiting car. Incidentally, a third witness comes forth who states that a wino found the ditched loot and happily made his way to the liquor store.
During the police report, your friend states for certain that he or she saw three robbers on foot with no getaway vehicle, while you state for certain that you saw only two robbers and a getaway vehicle. When pressed further, your friend maintains never seeing any getaway vehicle, while you maintain there was. A third person comes up and reports that he saw a wino find a bag of money, something which neither yourself nor your friend can testify to.
Note that although we have several difficulties and contradictions here, all three witnesses are one hundred percent correct in their statements, and absolutely zero error exists in any of their statements. So we’ve successfully established that error is not an intrinsic feature of contradiction.
cl
says...No comment on the genealogy question specifically, but yes, I will say that although contradiction can and often does entail error, error is not an intrinsic property of contradiction. 2 or more contradictory testimonies may in fact all be 100% true, as with the example about the bank robbery:
Let’s say you and your friend witness a robbery in which there were three robbers. You have a vantage point that obscures the door to the bank. Your friend has a vantage point that obscures his or her view of the getaway vehicle.
Your friend sees all three robbers run out of the bank with the loot and take off down the street, disappearing from his view. Then, after the robbers are beyond your friend’s vantage point, and before the robbers enter your vantage point, one of them gets a bad feeling that the getaway is going to fail, so he ditches his loot and takes off running down an alley. Next, you see two robbers turn the corner and dash for the waiting car. Incidentally, a third witness comes forth who states that a wino found the ditched loot and happily made his way to the liquor store.
During the police report, your friend states for certain that he or she saw three robbers on foot with no getaway vehicle, while you state for certain that you saw only two robbers and a getaway vehicle. When pressed further, your friend maintains never seeing any getaway vehicle, while you maintain there was. A third person comes up and reports that he saw a wino find a bag of money, something which neither yourself nor your friend can testify to.
Note that although we have several difficulties and contradictions here, all three witnesses are one hundred percent correct in their statements, and absolutely zero error exists in any of their statements. So we’ve successfully established that error is not an intrinsic feature of contradiction.
James
says...This is my reply to your comment on the post “What Must We Do to be Saved?” in case you don’t go back there to see it:
Every quotation by its very nature is “out-of-context” so you are merely pointing out something that is already a given. What matters more is not the fact that a quotation is out-of-context, but whether or not the given context demands a different interpretation than the one offered by the author. So, if you would like to provide some constructive criticism, then please explain what it is about the context of the quotation that necessitates a different conclusion from the one that the author here posits.
cl
says...James, or anyone else interested: My response is here.
cl
says...Well, that site wouldn’t accept my comment for some reason, who knows, it may be flagged for potential sockpuppetry as I’ve made separate posts from separate computers, but I’ll repost it here:
James,
Sorry, but such is simply incorrect and a classic example of the either/or fallacy, which manifests in several forms but always presents limited options when other viable options clearly exist. It is most certainly possible that in-context quotations exist. Yes or no?
I don’t have much a problem with that, as far as in saying it’s a non-fallacious statement at least. As epynehprin pointed out,
However, I can only criticize the first verse cited, as I simply stopped reading at that point for stated reasons. The first verse cited is most certainly in the context of forgiveness.
Well, epynephrin already handled that too, but I’ll concur and attempt to expand.
Such is simply incorrect. If, as noted, the first verse is about forgiveness, are all these cases addressing salvation and eternal life? Further troubling is the apparent lack of the Bible’s original languages in the analysis. Sōzō is an entirely separate issue than the forgiveness of sins.
I’ll disagree again, on two points. IMO, the problems is that people’s scholarship basically persists until they feel they’ve made their case. Secondly, the essentials for salvation are clearly stated IMO. For the sake of brevity, I’d rather not offer an inherently detailed defense at the moment. However, if you are interested in hearing it, I’ll gladly attempt to summarize in a subsequent comment. It is also here as False Argument 16. Lastly, when the reader’s scholarship is compromised, the flaw is most certainly with the reader IMO, whether that reader is a skeptic or a pastor.
Mark C.
says...I came here after reading your correspondence with mikespier on Ebon’s latest DA article. I don’t intend to get into a discussion, but there is one thing I would like to note.
With your bank robbery analogy, as long as the witnesses recount what they themselves ACTUALLY saw and nothing else (e.g. the assumption that the money was still with the two robbers who stuck together), there are no contradictions. One person saying “I saw X” and another person saying “I saw Y”, where X and Y are unequal, is not a contradiction when they contain no further assumptions.
cl
says...Mark C.,
Thanks for coming by. I agree with 9/10’s of what you’ve said.
cl
says...Mark C.,
Thanks for coming by. I agree with 9/10’s of what you’ve said.