Tag: ICBI

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re going to be continuing our look at biblical Inerrancy today and sometime on the day of this writing Mike Licona will be giving his talk on this topic at EPS and it will be a great one! For now, let’s go to the ICBI statement and take a look at Article XV:

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Accommodation is a teaching that Jesus did not really believe what the Jews around him did, but he acted in accordance with what they believed while all the while he knew better. Thus, even if Jesus did not believe in Inerrancy, he acted as if Inerrancy was true for the sake of the Jews.

Now to be sure, some ideas could be on a limitation of humanity, but not all. Did Jesus have to in some sense study like the rest of us? Yes. We find before he made a decision also like choosing the twelve apostles, he prayed about it. Chances are Jesus went through an education process like any Jewish boy would in his time.

The striking reality about Jesus however is that he often was willing to easily go against the establishment when he believed that they were clearly in the wrong. For instance, in Matthew 15, he did not hesitate to say that all foods were clean. This does not mean that he opposed the dietary laws as dietary laws in Leviticus. Instead, he was saying that righteousness does not come about that way. The age of the old purity code was coming to an end. It was time for the new purity code to begin that would be purity of heart more than purity of diet, and one’s diet could not affect that.

When someone was interpreting Scripture wrong, Jesus said so. When the Sadducees confronted him, he pointed to Scripture to show that they were wrong. In fact, he told them that the reason for their error was that they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. He told His opponents that the Scriptures they studied spoke of Him and yet they did not come to Him. Not only is He indicting them on lack of study, He’s saying that even prior to the cross, there is enough information from his ministry and miracles to know that He is the Messiah and they should come to Him.

When we see Jesus speaking about Scripture, we find Him speaking of it in the highest regard saying that it is written and that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that He must fulfill the Scriptures. It is hard to imagine that one like Jesus would acquiesce on some points but did not hesitate on the very points that led to his crucifixion.

I affirm then at the end that I too agree with this. However, I do not believe in Inerrancy simply because the Bible claims that it comes from God, but that it claims it and shows it. Self-testimony is part of evidence that must be taken into account. It is insufficient to prove the divine origins of Scripture by saying that the Bible says so. That is circular reasoning. The confirmation is found in that it proves to be such by study, which is again another post.

We shall continue next time.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Today, I’d like to continue our look at the doctrine of Inerrancy and we’ll be doing that by looking at Article XIV of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This article reads as follows:

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Once again, there isn’t much here that could be disagreed with. If there’s been a problem with the statement I’ve seen so far, it’s that it’s really simple. Of course, that can be good at times as one can just state what one believes and find who does and doesn’t support it, but when it comes to finer matters, it becomes difficult.

The idea of biblical contradictions is often construed as if the Christian is having cognitive dissonance and if they find something that is an apparent contradiction, there is no need to look further. Just stop right there and do not do anything. If you seek to resolve the contradiction, then you are just trying to deny that which is right in front of your face.

To begin with, I think there is a great deal of the Bible that is not plain. Thus, when someone tells you that they are going with the “plain” meaning or the “clear” meaning of the text, be on your guard. It could simply mean that which is plain or clear to a 21st century American. Is that the way it would have been seen at the time of the writing of the part of the Bible you are reading?

If there is something that is an apparent contradiction, is it wrong to give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible? No. In fact, I think this should be done with any book. If you think there is a contradiction in the Book of Mormon or the Koran, by all means feel free to ask about it, but if it can be explained well, then leave it at that. Don’t just press the issue because you think you found something. If the Book of Mormon and Koran are false, as I believe they are, then you will be able to demonstrate that on other grounds.

In doing so, you are not being consistent. This is also not the case just for religious books. If you think Aristotle contradicted himself between what he said in the Politics and what he said in the Nichomachean Ethics, then study it. Aristotle was a smart guy after all so he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it’s the case that he changed his mind. Maybe you’re misunderstanding. You don’t just want to immediately say “Well he didn’t know what he was talking about.” Wrestle with the text. Good hermeneutics applies not just to the Bible but to any ancient work.

Now I do believe that contradictions by and large have been resolved and numerous ones could be presented for dialogue. Suppose one hasn’t. Based on the track record I’ve seen in the Bible, I think it is fair to give the benefit of the doubt. Even if one is not resolved, this would not render the whole Bible false. Even if the text was errant, which it is not, Christianity would still be true.

We shall continue next time.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, as we continue our look at biblical Inerrancy, we probably will get into some controversial stuff as we look at article XII which I do have some concerns with. Let’s take a look at what it says first.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Now I will say that I do agree that Scripture is Inerrant in all that it teaches. However, I wonder about the last point. Could it be the case for instance that science could ever overturn a Scriptural teaching? If the historic belief is that God wrote two books, then we need not fear anything whatsoever in science. Hence, my opinion on scientific matters is simply that we should let the investigations go where they may. Of course, if we are scientists, we can participate in them, but if we believe the Bible is true, we need not fear any scientific conclusion. Naturally, I am aware that that does not mean conclusions by scientists necessarily. Science might show that macroevolution took place. It cannot show that there was no God driving macroevolution.

Would that mean that we’d have to rethink a lot of our interpretations? Yes it would, and we should be open to doing such. The whole Galileo issue might have turned out better had we taken a position like that. Today, I think the creation/evolution debate would turn out better if we did that. I have no problem with using extrabiblical evidence to help us in our understanding of the Bible. If we say “Well the Bible obviously isn’t teaching that because this evidence seems quite clear and is otherwise” then we can look more at what it is teaching. For instance, I’ve been impressed lately with the work of John Waldon on The Lost World of Genesis 1.

It could be I am misunderstanding the article, but I want us to be sure that if we do the science right and we do the biblical interpretation right, we will find truth in both cases. If macroevolution is not true, no need to fear science. True science working will eventually figure that out. If it is true, there’s no need to fear that for if we believe the Bible is true, then we will need to say “Maybe we were understanding this wrong” and start to seek a different interpretation. Does this violate Inerrancy? Not at all. We’re still saying that what the Bible says is absolutely true. We’re just saying that we were wrong on what it said.

So if the idea is that science cannot overturn the Bible, I agree. If it means however, that we ignore what is said in other fields outside of the Bible, I don’t agree. I say we should be fearless truth seekers wherever we go and we should rest assured that when we find something true in any field, it won’t disagree with Scripture.

We shall continue next time.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our look at Inerrancy and the ICBI statement on the topic. So far, we haven’t really found much that we’ve disagreed with. There’s no guarantee that we ever will. Nevertheless, hopefully this will be a look at Inerrancy that will increase our knowledge of the topic. We look tonight at Article XI which reads as follows:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

I agree that Scripture is by divine inspiration and is thus infallible. It is not meant to mislead us, but the problem is that we’re often great at misleading ourselves. Scripture is not an easy book to understand and too often we have been under the impression that just anyone can understand Scripture. Some parts I would say can be understood by anyone, but there is a lot that requires serious study in order to grasp.

This ought not surprise us. If you want to understand God’s creation in the body and how to heal it, you spend several years in study to be a doctor. If you want to study the heavens, you spend several years studying astronomy. If you want to know about the planet beneath our feet, then you will spend much time studying geology. Any area requires in-depth study in order to be knowledgeable on it and understand it beyond the level of the layman. Why expect Scripture to be different?

If we want to know what God means in a certain part of Scripture, then the idea is for us to be disciples. Disciples do not wait for their master to spoon feed them everything that they need to know. Instead, disciples are actively studying to know all that they can. The master is usually a guide helping to ask the right questions so that the student can find on his own. We all know about the proverb that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. It is the same with teaching him how to think. The good teacher does not tell the student what to think but rather guides the student into how best to think, even if those conclusions might disagree with the teacher.

Thus, as we wrap up this look at Article XI of the statement on biblical Inerrancy, once again, I do not have a problem with it. I think that the Bible is true in whatever it is that it is teaching. The only problem it seems comes when we think our teachings are infallible and inerrant. That belongs to the text alone.

We shall continue next time.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been spending my focus lately looking at the doctrine of Inerrancy, a doctrine I do agree with, and examining the ICBI statement on Inerrancy. Our look tonight will be at Article 10 which reads as follows:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So anyone ready to discuss textual criticism?

My wife and I have lately had Mormons over and this kind of topic has come up. Is it true that all we have is copies of copies of copies of copies? Are we simply playing a game of telephone? Could it be that all of the early copies we have have been altered from what the originals said?

To begin with, in order to know that all of the copies had been altered from what the originals said, one would have to know what the originals said to demonstrate that there has been a change of that magnitude. As all freely admit however, we do not have the originals so that kind of charge is problematic.

Second, with all the writing going on at the time in many languages and dialects and cultures and quotations being made by the church fathers, one would literally have to have the super speed of Clark Kent and a vast knowledge of language and specific knowledge on where each manuscript and copy was in order to go and change all of them. It just couldn’t be done.

So do we have telephone going on? No. Instead, copies are made from the oldest manuscripts. We can cross-reference all the copies that we have and see what the originals said. Most mistakes that we catch are usually simple things like spelling mistakes. They are easily caught.

Inerrancy also does not extend to the copies. There is no rule that a copyist has to copy everything down perfectly in order to save Inerrancy. For instance, take a translation like the Wicked Bible. In this Bible, the “not” was left out of “You shall not commit adultery.” Yeah. They got into a little bit of trouble for that. Does that mean that Inerrancy went out the window? Not a bit. Mistakes had happened before that, but that was in the copying and not the original writing.

When you have a new translation made today, generally, it is made from looking at the oldest and best manuscripts that we have. A translation is not made from a translation and that translation from a translation. They’re also not normally done by one person but by a committee of persons as a way to avoid bias.

Thus, I conclude that there is no problem with Article X. Mistakes in copies do not violate Inerrancy.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I want to make sure you all know that this weekend I will not be posting on Friday night at least due to my being a speaker at the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. If you happen to come, please be there for my talk on “Should You Believe In The Trinity?”

Tonight, in our look at Inerrancy, we’re going to be looking at the ninth article. Let’s go to the text.

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

This is a funny point for me to write about after reviewing Dawkins’s “The Magic of Reality.” If you read that review, within that book, Dawkins writes about why is it that the writers did not tell us about electricity or include a cure for cancer in the text. This is a fairly common objection found in your usual internet atheist.

Aside from prophecy to get people to repent, God was not really beaming down information into the heads of the writers. I do not think that Paul was sitting down to write an epistle and then just wait for God to suddenly turn a light on in his and help him to dispense great theology.

I think Paul was just a great thinker and that the Holy Spirit in some way guided his thinking. The Spirit did not tell him what to think. Now there could be a slight few exceptions to this, but they would certainly be just that, exceptions.

Did the writers write from a limited basis? Of course. That hasn’t changed in fact for 2,000 years since all writers write from a limited perspective. That does not mean that they wrote inaccuracies. If that was the case, every major science paper would need to be labelled inaccurate since all scientists today have a limited perspective and could be false.

This article concurs that God worked within the limitations of the people. It is a modern idea that the people in the Bible should have written with modern ideas in mind. An example of this is when people look at the listing of a bat as a bird in Leviticus. A bat isn’t a bird! True, but a bat has wings and the word used then meant “winged one.” We should not fault the Bible because it did not have a word for “winged mammal.”

Thus, when I get done looking at this article, I once again have to say that I agree and I think that this is an important contribution. It is also a reminder of how we need to look at the historical context for the Bible to best understand what is going on in any particular verse. Thus, in conclusion, we support article 9.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. First off, my again thanks to a kind contributor who made a sizable donation to our work today. It is much appreciated. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our look at Inerrancy by looking at the eighth article of the ICBI statement. It reads as follows:

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

This again is something important to note and something obviously misunderstood. We do not hold to a dictation theory. There are some very very few evangelicals who have held to such a position, but when one reads the writings of the writers of the Bible, they can usually tell that there are stylistic differences.

Isaiah, for instance, is highly poetic in what he says. Micah has quite a few puns in his prophecies. The Psalms have a wide variety within themselves. When it comes to the NT, some of the books are basic in their Greek, such as 1 John being one of the first ones that Greek students learn to translate. Luke and Acts, on the other hand, are ones that are quite difficult to translate.

Paul is highly logical in his thinking. He goes from point A to B and then to C. This is also one of the reasons that Peter would say that Paul’s writings are hard to understand, as many of us when reading the great thinkers of the past do have a hard time understanding what it is they are saying. James, on the other hand, is a more simple writer who prefers to use more examples from every day life. He writes about horses and ships and springs of water and uses analogies of farming.

Presuming that the same John who wrote the gospel also wrote the apocalypse, there is definitely a great change in style from one to the other. John’s gospel is one that tells a story in a more straight-forward narrative position with an emphasis on who Jesus is. The apocalypse contains much imagery that relates to events that take place sometime in the future from the time it was written, how distant you think it was depending on your analogy, but all agree the book contains much symbolism and it’s one of the ones commentators fear the most. However, I would also say that a large emphasis is on who Jesus is in it.

The importance of this to Inerrancy is also that this can explain many so-called contradictions. The writers wrote with their own personalities and in their own words. This would be especially true if Paul used a scribe, as he most certainly did at times, and could be even that Paul would just say what he wanted said, let the scribe put it in his own words, and then write a signature to the letter which would be along the lines of “I’m Paul and I approve this message.”

Thus, we agree with Article VIII.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through lately the doctrine of Inerrancy and taking a closer look at the ICBI statement. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at article VII. It reads as follows:

We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

At this one, I can agree to it, but I would appreciate if we had had more. For instance, Ben Witherington has written about the act of prophecy in his book “Jesus The Sage.” Of course, it is doubtful we could know about this since I question that revelation like that is going on today.

The denial is quite important however. The Bible was not based on people making lucky guesses. Prophecy was not just someone looking at the events of the time and making predictions. After all, when you have prophecies like those of the seventy weeks of Daniel, it’s hard to imagine about how those could have been predicted. The same with the numerous other prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. There are no doubt some that could have been filled intentionally and by planning, but not all could.

The purpose of such however was not just God showing off, but it was God showing that he knows the end from the beginning and therefore Israel ought to trust Him. Of course, there was the importance of them giving reasons to trust Him and of giving messages to other nations giving them the opportunity to repent.

We can too often approach such prophecy as if it is not really meant to tell us about God, but that is the primary purpose of it. Very little of what the prophets did was actually prophesying, in the sense of foretelling the future. Most of what they did was in fact leading the people to be righteous. They were meant to turn the hearts of the people back to YHWH.

The importance of it being accurate was because it was from YHWH. If someone made a prophecy and it did not come true, then that prophet was shown to be a false prophet and the penalty for that was death. God protected his Word very closely. If someone’s word did not come true, they were not from YHWH and were guilty of leading Israel into apostasy.

The bottom line in this one then is that all Scripture again comes from YHWH and by His inspiration, the prophets were able to know things that they would not have known otherwise. While it would have been nice to have seen more written on the nature of Inspiration and interaction with more scholarly works on the subject, we can conclude with saying that we agree with this article.

We shall continue next time.