biblical inerrancy

[© tweed]

pure doctrinalism.  to me it is inimical to the quest for Christ.  the texts range from being written decades after the death of Christ through, what a few decades from 325?  the idea of an inerrant bible I cannot wrap my head around.  the men who put pen to paper, ice pick to stone, are just as flawed as you and I.  I don't believe that God channels people and makes them perfect for x purpose or y period of time.  the Bible is dripping with the Holy Spirit and is obviously inspired by it, I agree; but to treat it orthodoxly is putting faith in men and Nicaea, not in Christ.  ask him, he knows all the answers. f*** any text

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I guess Tweed drank more than $40 worth after all.

[useful idiot]

It's a matter of faith, as is the notion that there is a Christ or God at all. I don't know how you can claim knowledge of Jesus or the God described in the Bible without it, aside from some sort of personal revelation. If you accept Christ then I don't know how you can accept the idea that God wouldn't have preserved his word for future generations.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

pure doctrinalism.  to me it is inimical to the quest for Christ.  the texts range from being written decades after the death of Christ through, what a few decades from 325?

a few decades from 325?   yeah, I guess that is why the books of the New Testament were being quoted from around 125 AD.

[J. J.]

pure doctrinalism.  to me it is inimical to the quest for Christ.  the texts range from being written decades after the death of Christ through, what a few decades from 325?

a few decades from 325?   yeah, I guess that is why the books of the New Testament were being quoted from around 125 AD.

Which books, and are they still in the Bible?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

pure doctrinalism.  to me it is inimical to the quest for Christ.  the texts range from being written decades after the death of Christ through, what a few decades from 325?

a few decades from 325?   yeah, I guess that is why the books of the New Testament were being quoted from around 125 AD.

Which books, and are they still in the Bible?

IN a single letter from Clement (30- 95 A.D.) he used 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 book of the New Testament.

Various Gospels
Acts
Romans
I Corinthians
Titus
Hebrews
1Peter
2Peter
James

Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) quoted directly from 17 of the 27 books.

•   Gospel according to Matthew
•   Gospel according to Luke
•   Gospel according to John
•   Acts
•   Romans
•   I Corinthians
•   2Corinthians
•   Galatians
•   Ephesians
•   Colossians
•   I Thessalonians
•   2Thessalonians
•   1Timothy
•   2Timothy
•   Philemon
•   Hebrews
•   1Peter
•   (maybe) Revelation


In a single letter from Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) he used 120 quotes from 17 books of the New Testament:
•   Gospel according to Matthew
•   Gospel according to Mark
•   Gospel according to Luke
•   Acts
•   I Corinthians
•   II Corinthians
•   Galatians
•   Ephesians
•   Philippians
•   I Thessalonians
•   II Thessalonians
•   I Timothy
•   II Timothy
•   Hebrews
•   I Peter
•   I John
•   III John

So, just from these three writers, we have quotes from the following books of the New Testament:
•   Gospel according to Matthew
•   Gospel according to Mark
•   Gospel according to Luke
•   Gospel according to John
•   Acts
•   Romans
•   I Corinthians
•   II Corinthians
•   Galatians
•   Ephesians
•   Colossians
•   Philippians
•   I Thessalonians
•   II Thessalonians
•   I Timothy
•   II Timothy
•   Philemon
•   Titus
•   Hebrews
•   I Peter
•   II Peter
•   James
•   I John
•   III John
•   Possibly Revelation

So, the only ones not quoted from by these 3 writters are 2John (single chapter book) and Jude (single chapter, basically identical to 2Peter) and possibly Revelation.

As to the book of Revelation, believed to have been written around 95AD, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) avows his belief in its apostolic origin. Irenaeus (c. 115-202) assumes it as a conceded point. At the end of the second century, it is accepted at Antioch by Theophilus (died c. 183).

As for Jude, by the end of the second century Jude was widely accepted as canonical. Clement, Tertullian and the Muratorian canon considered the letter canonical.

---

…and are they still in the Bible?

Dust off your bible and find out for yourself.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Dust off your bible and find out for yourself.

I'll bet J.J. has read it as much, if not more than most.....seeing as his dad was a minister.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Quite obviously, jmfcst, by saying "are they still in the bible," J.J.'s saying that even though parts of the current bible may have been quoted, the quotes may be from documents that precede the books of the New Testament in their eventual, canonical form.  Perhaps if you did a bit less bloviation and a bit more listening you might not make such a blockheaded mistake, of the like that you continue to make again and again in your debates here.

Well, let’s see:  there are 5600 Greek surviving references to the New Testament, in addition there are over 19,000 references in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages…and among these 24,600 references, there is 99.5% agreement in content.

So, when exactly are you saying the writings of the New Testament were altered? I didn’t catch that part of your rant.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

IN a single letter from Clement (30- 95 A.D.) he used 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 book of the New Testament.

Various Gospels
Acts
Romans
I Corinthians
Titus
Hebrews
1Peter
2Peter
James

Which letter are you referring to?

If you are referring to 1 Clement, it is entirely possible that the author of 2 Peter quotes him rather than the other way round.  2 Peter is almost certainly not written by the author of 1 Peter. For someone writing a pseudoepigraph attributed to Peter, including references to 1 Clement would be quite appropriate, given the association between Clement and Peter. Besides, the dating and authorship of 1 Clement is disputed itself.

If you are referring to 2 Clement, the scholarly consensus is that it was written in the mid 2nd-century (and thus obviously not by Clement).

That's the problem with proof by referral to authority.  You then need to check the provenance of the authorities you refer to.

Still, the scholarly consensus is with the possible exceptions of James and 2 Peter, the canonical books of the NT were all written in the first century, tho some scholars argue for later dates for some of the other books.

[J. J.]

Dust off your bible and find out for yourself.

I will, as soon as there is agreement what is in it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

2 Peter is almost certainly not written by the author of 1 Peter.

 As if 2Peter contains knowledge that the Apostle Peter didn't know...in fact, 2Peter (as well of Jude) teaches the same general doctrines found throughout the rest of the New Testament.

---

Besides, the dating and authorship of 1 Clement is disputed itself...That's the problem with proof by referral to authority.  You then need to check the provenance of the authorities you refer to.

1Clement has to have been written before 140AD since it itself it talked about in letters written around 150AD.  And I wasn’t attempting to pin down the date of 1Clement, rather I was proving that the vast majority of the books of the NT were well known by the mid second century, thus proving false the idea that they could have been written around 300AD.

The historical accuracy of the NT is the best evidence that it was written by those who lived in Judea prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dust off your bible and find out for yourself.

I will, as soon as there is agreement what is in it.

something tells me eternity isn't going to wait for that

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Which letter are you referring to?

If you are referring to 1 Clement, it is entirely possible that the author of 2 Peter quotes him rather than the other way round.  2 Peter is almost certainly not written by the author of 1 Peter. For someone writing a pseudoepigraph attributed to Peter, including references to 1 Clement would be quite appropriate, given the association between Clement and Peter. Besides, the dating and authorship of 1 Clement is disputed itself.

I've always read that 1 Clement likely predates a fair number of the biblical books found in the Christian Bible, and 2 Peter is undoubtedly one of them.

[12th Doctor]

pure doctrinalism.  to me it is inimical to the quest for Christ.  the texts range from being written decades after the death of Christ through, what a few decades from 325?

a few decades from 325?   yeah, I guess that is why the books of the New Testament were being quoted from around 125 AD.

Which books, and are they still in the Bible?

IN a single letter from Pope Clement (30- 95 A.D.) he used 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 book of the New Testament.

Various Gospels
Acts
Romans
I Corinthians
Titus
Hebrews
1Peter
2Peter
James

Fixed it.

[12th Doctor]

As for the question itself...

Of course I accept that the Bible is inerrant in spirit.  I even believe that it is inerrant in specific text.  The question is, how do we interpret said text, in a contextual understanding, and how to we apply those lessons to our world.  This is where the strict, fundamentalist argument implodes.

P.S.  Well, that and the fact that they are ridiculously selective in what they chose to apply their "absolute literalism" model, to the point of absolute hypocrisy.

[J. J.]

Dust off your bible and find out for yourself.

I will, as soon as there is agreement what is in it.

something tells me eternity isn't going to wait for that

Something tells me "eternity" doesn't care for human judgments either.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2 Peter is almost certainly not written by the author of 1 Peter.

 As if 2Peter contains knowledge that the Apostle Peter didn't know...in fact, 2Peter (as well of Jude) teaches the same general doctrines found throughout the rest of the New Testament.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taken together, then in order to be consistent with the doctrine of absolute biblical inerrancy, one must believe that not only that both 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the same person, but that the person in question was Peter.  That they are doctrinally compatible is necessary but not sufficient to buttress that doctrine.

---

I wasn’t attempting to pin down the date of 1Clement, rather I was proving that the vast majority of the books of the NT were well known by the mid second century, thus proving false the idea that they could have been written around 300AD.

You should thank Tweed for providing that strawman for you in the original post of this thread.  I don't know of any serious scholar who would make such a claim as he did.

The historical accuracy of the NT is the best evidence that it was written by those who lived in Judea prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

With the exception of the Pauline epistles that were actually written by Paul, it is likely that the NT was mainly written in the first century after the fall of Jerusalem.  Evidence that those first century authors lived in Judea prior to the First Revolt is lacking, and the fact they wrote in Greek using rather than Aramaic and largely used the Septuagint version of the OT argues against (but certainly does not disprove) the hypothesis that said writers were Judeans. They certainly weren't writing for a Judean audience, but for an audience of Gentiles and Hellenized Jews.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

if two books of the Bible contain differing accounts of the same event, which one is inerrant?
i don't believe inerrancy is a concept the biblical authors and compilers were very concerned about.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Taken together, then in order to be consistent with the doctrine of absolute biblical inerrancy, one must believe that not only that both 1 Peter and 2 Peter were written by the same person, but that the person in question was Peter.  That they are doctrinally compatible is necessary but not sufficient to buttress that doctrine.

Not sure what your point is, of course I believe they were both written by Peter.

---

With the exception of the Pauline epistles that were actually written by Paul, it is likely that the NT was mainly written in the first century after the fall of Jerusalem.  Evidence that those first century authors lived in Judea prior to the First Revolt is lacking, and the fact they wrote in Greek using rather than Aramaic and largely used the Septuagint version of the OT argues against (but certainly does not disprove) the hypothesis that said writers were Judeans. They certainly weren't writing for a Judean audience, but for an audience of Gentiles and Hellenized Jews.

First, the Greek language had been used Judea long before 70AD, and the Septuagint dates back hundreds of years before 70AD and was held in high regard by non-Christian Jews like Josephus.  Also, the detailed descriptions within the gospels of places within Jerusalem that were destroy in 70AD  (e.g.  a court called Gabbatha or The Pavement) show that they were accounts of those who lived in a pre70AD Judea.

And the book of Acts has proven time and time to again to be accurate in its descriptions of the Mediterranean world, from Judea through Rome, as they existed in mid first century, simply could not have been produced by someone who wasn’t an eyewitness.  Also, the mere fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul living in his own rented apartment and awaiting trails shows that it was written before Paul died.

Also, if the NT books had been written after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, then the NT surely would have mentioned the fact since its destruction is of extreme doctrinal importance to the NT.  (The book of Revelation is the only book that would have an excuse not to mention the destruction of the Temple since it is simply a account of a number of visions given to John about the endtimes and is not intended to given an historical accounting.)  So, outside of Revelation, there simply would have been no reason not to mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, demonstrating once again that it was written prior to 70AD.  And since the individual books of the NT were written in various locations by various people and over a period of decades, it is very hard to contemplate a grand conspiracy to not mention the destruction of the Temple.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dust off your bible and find out for yourself.

I will, as soon as there is agreement what is in it.

something tells me eternity isn't going to wait for that

Something tells me "eternity" doesn't care for human judgments either.

There is already a biblical precedent for God not waiting for everyone to agree to a single canon – in fact, within the 4 gospels it is recorded that the Sadducees and the Pharisees and the Samaritans had different canons and different doctrines, but Christ was brought into the world anyway and people were held accountable for accepting the truth, demonstrating  that God’s timetable is not hindered by differences of opinion.

So, saying that you’re not going to accept the bible until there is agreement to what is in it doesn’t make sense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, the mere fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul living in his own rented apartment and awaiting trails shows that it was written before Paul died.

By that argument, Margaret Mitchell must have written Gone With the Wind before she was born.

Also, if the NT books had been written after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, then the NT surely would have mentioned the fact since its destruction is of extreme doctrinal importance to the NT.  (The book of Revelation is the only book that would have an excuse not to mention the destruction of the Temple since it is simply a account of a number of visions given to John about the endtimes and is not intended to given an historical accounting.)  So, outside of Revelation, there simply would have been no reason not to mention the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, demonstrating once again that it was written prior to 70AD.  And since the individual books of the NT were written in various locations by various people and over a period of decades, it is very hard to contemplate a grand conspiracy to not mention the destruction of the Temple.

Who needs a grand conspiracy?  The destruction happened well after the crucifixion, so it had no impact upon the life and times of Jesus.

While the temple buildings might be important to Dispensationalists today, that doesn't imply that Christians at the time would have thought it significant.

Assuming a pre-70 AD, writing, John 2:18-22 shows, that by the time Herod's Temple had come crashing down, Christians had come to the opinion that what happened to it was irrelevant. (A cynic might argue that the passage was written post-destruction to show why the destruction of the temple was irrelevant.)

Even if it had been considered relevant, at least according to tradition, there were apostles such as John who lived for some years after the destruction of Herod's Temple, and who could have written commentary on the destruction of the Temple had they thought it important.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, the mere fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul living in his own rented apartment and awaiting trails shows that it was written before Paul died.

By that argument, Margaret Mitchell must have written Gone With the Wind before she was born.

what?

1)   It is simply impossible for the writer of the book of Acts not to have been an eyewitness to the events of Paul’s ministry.  His geographic and geopolitical knowledge of so many countries during the era of 35AD to 60AD is unmatched by anyone else in history, Christian or otherwise.  Only someone who had lived during that time and had traveled to those countries could make such accurate statements.  In fact, his knowledge is so unique, many of his recorded details were doubted because of lack of corroborating witnesses and this lack of corroboration was used by skeptics to cast doubt on the authenticity of the book.  But over the last few centuries, archeology has proven the book of Acts to have unsurpassed accuracy.
2)   Since the accuracy of the book proves that it was written by an eyewitness, there is no reason to end the book of Acts in the middle of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome while awaiting trial. Therefore, the endpoint of the chronology as recorded in the book of Acts marks the time that the book of Acts was written.
3)   And since the beginning of the book of Acts notes the Gospel of Luke, both written by the same author and addressed to the same person, the Gospel of Luke was written before the book of Acts was written.

---

Who needs a grand conspiracy?  The destruction happened well after the crucifixion, so it had no impact upon the life and times of Jesus.

While the temple buildings might be important to Dispensationalists today, that doesn't imply that Christians at the time would have thought it significant.
Assuming a pre-70 AD, writing, John 2:18-22 shows, that by the time Herod's Temple had come crashing down, Christians had come to the opinion that what happened to it was irrelevant. (A cynic might argue that the passage was written post-destruction to show why the destruction of the temple was irrelevant.)

You obviously know nothing about the NT, for it is permeated with prophesies surrounding the destruction of the physical Temple in Jerusalem due to the fact that is was no longer needed since the true sacrifice had come.  Jesus repeatedly predicted that every stone of the Temple would be thrown down, the book of Hebrews predicts it, etc, etc, etc….For these reasons, ALL OF CHRISTIANITY holds the destruction of the Temple in 70AD as extremely significant

Oh, and BTW, the book of Luke, which predates the book of Acts, which predates Paul’s first trial in Rome, speaks about the destruction of the Temple:

Luke 21:5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

---

Even if it had been considered relevant, at least according to tradition, there were apostles such as John who lived for some years after the destruction of Herod's Temple, and who could have written commentary on the destruction of the Temple had they thought it important.

To think that the only letters John wrote are contained in the NT is crazy.  He obviously made oral and written comments not contained in the NT, so lack of surviving commentary is NOT proof that he made no other commentaries.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, the mere fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul living in his own rented apartment and awaiting trails shows that it was written before Paul died.

By that argument, Margaret Mitchell must have written Gone With the Wind before she was born.

what?

Margaret Mitchell was born in 1900, well after the last events depicted in her novel would have occurred had they been true.  I was trying to humorously point out the utter absurdity of your claim that because the last events depicted in Acts would have happened at a particular point in time, it proves that Acts must have been written at that time.

1)   It is simply impossible for the writer of the book of Acts not to have been an eyewitness to the events of Paul’s ministry.  His geographic and geopolitical knowledge of so many countries during the era of 35AD to 60AD is unmatched by anyone else in history, Christian or otherwise.  Only someone who had lived during that time and had traveled to those countries could make such accurate statements.  In fact, his knowledge is so unique, many of his recorded details were doubted because of lack of corroborating witnesses and this lack of corroboration was used by skeptics to cast doubt on the authenticity of the book.  But over the last few centuries, archeology has proven the book of Acts to have unsurpassed accuracy.
2)   Since the accuracy of the book proves that it was written by an eyewitness, there is no reason to end the book of Acts in the middle of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome while awaiting trial. Therefore, the endpoint of the chronology as recorded in the book of Acts marks the time that the book of Acts was written.

There are a number of details in Acts that call into question its accuracy and especially the date of its composition as being before the destruction of the Temple.  The most telling is these with respect to the date issue is the reference to the Roman province of Cilicia in Acts 6:9.  That province did not exist during the period 27 B.C. to 72 A.D.

3)   And since the beginning of the book of Acts notes the Gospel of Luke, both written by the same author and addressed to the same person, the Gospel of Luke was written before the book of Acts was written.

No serious scholar doubts that Luke and Acts were written by the same author (traditionally Luke the Evangelist).

Even if it had been considered relevant, at least according to tradition, there were apostles such as John who lived for some years after the destruction of Herod's Temple, and who could have written commentary on the destruction of the Temple had they thought it important.

To think that the only letters John wrote are contained in the NT is crazy.  He obviously made oral and written comments not contained in the NT, so lack of surviving commentary is NOT proof that he made no other commentaries.

By the same argument, that Acts ends where its does, is not proof of when it was written.  It is quite possible that the author wrote, or intended to write, a third book which continued the story of Luke-Acts but which was either never written or has been lost. Said third book would probably cover the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and possibly continue on to cover the destruction of Jerusalem.  The death of Luke the Evangelist is traditionally held to have happened in 84 AD, so if he is the author, he certainly could have continued the story if the tradition is accurate (and even if it missed his date of death by a good decade).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Margaret Mitchell was born in 1900, well after the last events depicted in her novel would have occurred had they been true.  I was trying to humorously point out the utter absurdity of your claim that because the last events depicted in Acts would have happened at a particular point in time, it proves that Acts must have been written at that time.

I don’t understand the comparison.  Luke gives details concerning 32 different countries, 54 cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. In addition, he alludes to 95 different people, 62 of which are not mentioned by any other New Testament writer. 27 of these are unbelievers, chiefly civil or military officials….with the vast majority of details having been proven true and NONE of them have been proven false.

Only a fruitcake would compare the most accurate description by a single author of the first century Mediterranean world to a novel like Gone with the Wind.

----

No serious scholar doubts that Luke and Acts were written by the same author (traditionally Luke the Evangelist).

Oh, I get it:  your knowledge of the book of Acts, which you have clearly not read, is the sum total of a couple of google searches.

---

By the same argument, that Acts ends where its does, is not proof of when it was written.  It is quite possible that the author wrote, or intended to write, a third book which continued the story of Luke-Acts but which was either never written or has been lost. Said third book would probably cover the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, and possibly continue on to cover the destruction of Jerusalem.  The death of Luke the Evangelist is traditionally held to have happened in 84 AD, so if he is the author, he certainly could have continued the story if the tradition is accurate (and even if it missed his date of death by a good decade).

That’s pure conjecture and a bunch of rubbish, as both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are unabridged – The Gospel of Luke stated its goal (see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-2) and completed it, therefore Acts is NOT meant to be simply a continuation of the Gospel of Luke (the history of the actions of Jesus), rather the book of Acts has a completely different focus (the history of the church)…and since Luke did NOT leave the reader hanging at the end of Gospel of Luke, there is no argument to be made that Luke all the sudden decided to leave the reader hanging at the end of the book of Acts.


----

There are a number of details in Acts that call into question its accuracy and especially the date of its composition as being before the destruction of the Temple.  The most telling is these with respect to the date issue is the reference to the Roman province of Cilicia in Acts 6:9.  That province did not exist during the period 27 B.C. to 72 A.D.

Again, I don’t understand your point, but let me give it a try…the province of Cilicia had been under Roman control for a hundred years, then for about 30 years some of it was divided up among various client kings, all subject to Rome, and with the rest of the province falling under the governor of Syria who was also subject to Rome …and you think that greater Cilicia was NOT still commonly referred to as the province of Cilicia during that brief interlude, as if people just turned on a dime and instead of referring to greater Cilicia, started listing instead all the individual pieces in order to refer to the sum total, even though it still remained under Roman control?!  That hasn’t been my experience with people.

But, hey, I guess I have to make a note to stop calling the upper northeastern part of the United States by the name “New England”, since it hasn’t been an official confederation for a couple of hundred years, and therefore no one is going to know what geographical area I am talking about….although it is completely clear the reader would understand what geographical area to which Luke referred.

Sorry, but that is a very dumb argument you just made and is contrary every day experience.

---

In short, you know next to nothing about the NT, except the erroneous arguments of unbelievers that you were able to find with Google.  If you are going to use someone else’s argument, at least pick someone who has read the NT.

[victorola]

Hi Jmfcst,
I was wondering if you could explain to me the criteria in determining which books are to be considered cannonical. I know there are numerous documents fromt the times of the early church that were at times considered to be legitimate scripture but were ultimately left out of the NT cannon. IIRC, what is generally accepted as cannon today was compiled by bishops councils in the 4th century.

Please keep in mind I'm rather new to this subject.