This post has been updated to include additional content on 10/2
Some Christians believe that while the Bible is without error when it speaks to spiritual matters (God, salvation), there may be errors in those sections that speak to scientific and historical matters, which should not concern us. This view of Biblical inspiration is often called limited inerrancy.
While it would be worthwhile to examine each of the purported scientific and historical errors in the Bible to determine if they are indeed errors, the notion of limited inerrancy can be evaluated in a more fundamental way. Greg Koukl has observed that it makes little sense to believe what the Bible says in matters we cannot test (such as miracles, resurrection, incarnation), when the Bible is shown to be untrustworthy in those matters we can test. That’s not to say the presence of errors would necessarily invalidate every truth claim the Bible makes, but it is to say that it would make it much more difficult to trust its spiritual claims. If God was not able to ensure that the Biblical authors accurately transmitted matters of history and science—which were naturally more accessible to them—why think He was able to ensure that they accurately transmitted spiritual matters? I see little reason to do so.
(The following content has been added as of 10/2)
It’s a credibility issue. Credibility is earned. It is gained by being right, and lost by being wrong. Limited inerrantists are telling us that we should trust everything the Biblical authors tell us about spiritual matters, but we cannot trust everything they tell us about non-spiritual matters because they have proven themselves to be mistaken in various ways on such matters. But if they have proven themselves to make mistakes in areas that we can test them on, why should we think they haven’t made any errors on matters that we can’t test them on? The limited inerrantist can’t respond by saying God’s involvement ensures that they will not err on such matters, because God is involved in the whole process. If He couldn’t keep the authors from erring on non-spiritual matters, there is no reason to think He could keep them from erring in spiritual matters.
A limited inerrantist might respond that God was only involved in those sections of Scripture dealing with spiritual matters. But this portrays an absurd picture of inspiration. Scripture goes back and forth between non-spiritual and spiritual claims. Surely God’s involvement was not iterant so that when the author writes a word about geography God checks out, but when he is about to write a few words on spiritual truth God checks back in! Even if this were possible, what reason would God have for deciding to inspire only those words dealing with spiritual matters? He knew that people would question the credibility of the religious claims if His authors flubbed up their facts on non-spiritual matters. So why wouldn’t God, in the interest of giving more credibility to the spiritual claims, superintend what His authors wrote about all matters?
Thinking to Believe 
September 27, 2009 at 8:27 am
It’s all a fairy tale my friend. If the powers that be can remove thought from the people and have them rely on “faith” they will continue to control the masses. Think about it, when we place elected officials into office we have “faith” they will do what we expect them to do. However, they continue to do what the politicians before them have, nothing for the poor or the elderly. Even the bible says something about taking care of the poor and the elderly. I would rather be right and march into hell than follow a bunch of fools into heaven!
LikeLike
September 27, 2009 at 11:25 am
Keith,
You write:
I would rather be right and march into hell than follow a bunch of fools into heaven!
Such bravado. But if you really had to choose between eternal torture and being wrong, you’d happily volunteer to be Tweedledumber.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 27, 2009 at 3:26 pm
If you examine the scriptures deeper, you will find previously hidden connections. These connections serve to clarify and help paint a bigger picture of who God is. I would like someone to explain to me what innacuracies, specifically, there are in the Bible? There is an illumination of truth. You also cannot take human perspectives and apply them to God or His word. It can only be understood under the influence of the anointing of the Holy Ghost.
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 4:28 am
I concur.
Although you may wish to clarify which bible you are referring to, as even stout believers of biblical inerrancy allow for slight translational problems and copyist errors., They claim that only the original manuscripts (autographs) are inerrant, and that the overall truth is copied accurately, even allowing the copyinst errors and translational mishaps.
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 4:28 am
such as the “copyinst” instead of “copyist”
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 7:43 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
The sacred word is infalliable and inerrant or in other words is entirely true and the sole determiner of what truth is. Science so-called, politics, or anything else must agree with the sacred word. If anything such as history contradicts sacred scripture then history is wrong and the word of God is right.
This is a God centric view which one must possess in one’s life to please and enter into God’s paradise.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 7:45 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
As I said before so say I now again the sacred word whether in the original languages or the translations is infalliable and inerrent and is the sole standard of what truth. There can not exist truth outside of the word of God. All creation must be/is/ and shall be judged by the word of truth.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 10:38 am
Although there may be copying “errors” and such, I am not aware of any errors in the bible’s historical transmission much less in its spiritual transmission. Even if there were some errors in its historical transmission, I don’t see why that automatically means that we cannot trust its spiritual transmission?
I think we are getting into areas of how God inspired His Word to be written and the nature of that inspiration. What’s important is the message itself and of that I have no doubt that the bible is God-inspired. What we must also remember is that God used fallible humans to pen the Word and with that I can see how there may be some “innocent” mistakes made. Perhaps God allowed it to be that way so that we wouldn’t make an idol out the written book ?
Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that if we don’t repent, we will still perish whether there are mistakes or not !
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 10:40 am
Keith,
No amount of assertions can ever add up to an argument. Furthermore, as C.S. Lewis noted, before you can speak to why someone is wrong, you must first demonstrate that they are wrong. So all speak of controlling people gets the cart before the horse.
Furthemore, you misunderstand the Biblical idea of faith. It is not a blind leap in the dark, but a trust based on evidence. Faith is not opposed to knowledge, but rather unbelief.
Jason
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
To keith1964 :
Keith, you are right in that there are people who use “faith” and belief in God to control the masses. This is not a new thing and has been common since the beginning. That is why we have so many cults and false religions in the world. Many religious groups themselves are deceived and deceive others by teaching man’s traditions and things contrary to truth.
The good news my friend is that there is a True and Faithful God that you can trust because He is the only One that you can trust in matters of your soul and eternity. All the impostors and counterfeits only prove there is real genuine article out there. It’s up to us to seek the truth by faith and not be deceived by the abundant of liars out there trying to snare you. God never said to “check out your brains when you walk into a church” , so we should never stop thinking when it comes to spiritual matters and things of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 28, 2009 at 1:02 pm
….which leads to a sidebar issue: Are the “66 books” all there is to the canon? Is it true that the books, which we call the Apocrypha, where removed from the original Bible. I continue to sway back and forth on this (since i’ve heard compelling arguments from both the pro and anti-Apocrypha camp). I wonder if someone can provide more clarity.
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 1:13 pm
As I understand it, the Apocrypha was never considered to be inspired by virtually anyone (Jews or Christians). It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation that the Catholics canonized them, and they did so because they helped support their theological cause against the Reformers.
Jason
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Keith said- “I would rather be right and march into hell than follow a bunch of fools into heaven!”
That may be the most ignorant phrase I’ve ever heard. Our own pride and humanism strive to make us feel self-sufficient, even though we’re only finite. God never said we’d know it all. He said we’d know enough to get us to the other side.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 28, 2009 at 4:37 pm
The Word is infallible- incapable of error. The Word is Spirit, and that same spirit is Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Jason,
Your view of the Apocrypha is incorrect. The Apocrypha were always considered inspired scripture. The Protestants questioned them because they disagreed with some of the teachings, so they challenged them. The Catholics then responded by affirming what was already known, that the Apocrypha are Scripture. BTW, ALL scripture is God-breathed.
Proof of this fact can be seen by reading the Greek Orthodox. They have been separate from the Catholic Church since 1054, yet they agree that the Apocrypha/Deutercanon is Scripture. It’s tight but it’s right!
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Deuterocanon
Also note at that link, the Orthodox include additional books rejected by the Catholics. So much for the claim that Christians “always knew” what books were inspired.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Jason,
More on my last point. The Ethiopian (Coptic) Orthodox have the largest canon, including more than the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm
The following site shows the differences between different Christian canons. Note that all of the apostolic churches (ie, those directly descended from the apostles) include all of the apocrypha, and some contain even more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon
Included by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, but excluded by Jews, Samaritans and most Protestants: … [the Apocrypha]
Included by Orthodox (Synod of Jerusalem):
* 1 Esdras (see Esdras for other names)
* 3 Maccabees
* 4 Maccabees (in appendix but not canonical)
* Prayer of Manasseh
* Psalm 151
Included by Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox:
* 2 Esdras
Included by Ethiopian Orthodox:
* Jubilees
* Enoch
* 1–3 Meqabyan
Included by Syriac Peshitta Bible:
* Psalms 152–155
* 2 Baruch
So there is great confusion among the Christian churches as to what is Scripture. But all the churches, except for the Protestants, accept the Apocrypha.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 28, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Jason,
More on my last point. The Ethiopian (Coptic) Orthodox have the largest canon, including more than the Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/ethold.stm
The following site shows the differences between different Christian canons. Note that all of the apostolic churches (ie, those directly descended from the apostles) include all of the apocrypha, and some contain even more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_Biblical_canon
Arthur
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 2:55 am
Arthur,
I’m afraid when it comes to the Apocrypha, I strongly disagree. It was not counted as “inspired” until 1500s (Trent) and is denied scriptural authenticity. Not one quote is used from it (although that in itself does not stop it being inspired) but there are major issues involved with having it being inspired (blatent contradictions of ‘canon’ and disregard to the views held in the ‘canon’.
Also, the Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as divine as can be deduced from the writings of Josephus and since the Christian religion is identical to the Jewish religion (before Christ), one has to take that into consideration.
Another point is to view Jesus’ statement in Luke 11:51 “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacheriah…” which is Genesis (Abel) and 2 Chronicles (Zacheriah) which incidently is the first and last books in the Jewish canon.
The last point I’ll make is that not one of the Apocryphal books contain any words of inspiration, and moreover, the author of Maccabees alludes to the fact that he is NOT inspired and that he has written it in a way that is pleasant to read which is not how the rest of the canonical scriptures are written.
http://www.dtl.org/catholicism/emails/apocrypha.htm
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
If you still disagree, I will do more research on it and find academic resources.
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 29, 2009 at 3:04 am
Naz,
The problem with allowing historical inaccuracies is that Timothy states that “all scripture is God-breathed” which means that if some of it is wrong, then that means that God is wrong. Or a liar. Neither which is conducive to our faith!
Also, there is no reason to believe the untestable parts if the testable parts are proven wrong! As Jason pointed out in the article.
The only way round this, is that if one book is proven incorrect, it does not necessarily mean that the other books are incorrect. It would only invalidate the one book.
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Arthur,
I don’t know any scholar who claims that the church “always knew” what books were inspired. The process of determining the canon was a slow and arduous process. Not everyone agreed, although there was always a core agreement about certain books.
You are right that certain Christians considered the Apocrypha inspired, namely the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Church. But you are wrong to say it was always considered inspired by the church. Even the Coptic Church didn’t canonize those books until after the 5th century (according to my research).
This isn’t to pretend that everyone fully agreed in the beginning either. Because various books of the Apocrypha were included in the various editions of the LXX (Their inclusion does not mean they were considered inspired or canonical. They were included because they were treasured for their devotional/historical value. It would be like me including C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity in a printed edition of the Bible. By doing so I am not saying I think it is inspired Scripture, but rather that it is a very important work that Christians need to read alongside Scripture, not as Scripture), the Gentile church came to know them. And yes, some individuals in the early church thought that certain of these books should be included in the OT canon. Most church fathers who thought they were inspired, however, did not think all of them were inspired. For example, Origen only considered Susana and Tobit Scripture, as well as the LXX additions to Daniel and Esther. Augustine thought Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, two of the Maccabees, and Ecclesiasticus were inspired. In contrast, Jerome did not, but included them in his Vulgate at the behest of others because the books were held in high esteem.
So there was certainly a variety of opinion early on, but over the course of 400 years, which books were canonical and which books were not was generally accepted by all. And what was accepted by most was that the Apocryhpha was important, but not Scripture.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 29, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Scott, thanks for the reply.
I understand what you’re saying and it makes perfectly logical sense that if the testable parts cannot be trusted, how can we trust the untestable parts.
I believe the scriptures are God-breathed (inspiration) but what is the nature of that inspiration ? Are historical facts inspired ? or are they just written by a historian ? For the most-part, the bible is a mixture of spiritual God-breathed content and just mundane historical facts. Should I concern myself if David’s army killed 10,000 instead of 5000 Philistines ? (I made that up for illustration)
In my understanding, inspired scripture are the principles, precepts and direct words of our Creator spoken through His prophets for our spiritual benefit. Did God inspire all historical details as well? Apart from obvious portions like the Genesis account, I don’t know if He did or not. If there are historical errors then I know He obviously didn’t inspire those errors.
My point is that maybe we don’t have to take an all or nothing approach to some books or portions of books that we may deem questionable as to their historic accuracy. For example, the book of Enoch. There is a verse in Jude that I believe is quoted from the book of Enoch. I have read some of Enoch and would probably count most of it as not being scripture based on its content. However, I believe there are some portions in there that ring true. I’d be careful about being dogmatic about any of them but we already have enough trustworthy scripture that the book of Enoch is not going to make any difference to my theology anyways.
In the end, do we have enough scripture to have faith in God and to trust Him completely despite some indications that may point towards error in parts of the bible ? Or is our faith solely based on being intellectually satisfied to the nth degree ? I think our relationship with God in the spirit must exceed what we can know by just human knowledge.
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Jason,
You wrote:
So there was certainly a variety of opinion early on, but over the course of 400 years, which books were canonical and which books were not was generally accepted by all. And what was accepted by most was that the Apocryhpha was important, but not Scripture.
That’s not consistent with my understanding, or the information available at the links that I posted. What I see are all of the original churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, etc) agreeing that the Apocrypha are full-fledged Scripture. They have some disagreements on some additional books, but they all accept the Apocrypha.
Either the Protestants or the Catholics are lying. You claim 11 above that the Catholics declared non-Scriptural “Apocrypha” to be Scripture during the Reformation. I’ve tested that claim by looking at the other original churches, like the Orthodox, that broke off from the Catholics long before the Reformation. The fact that they all accept the books of the Apocrypha as Scripture tells me that it’s the Protestants who are lying on this point.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Naz,
I wish to make it clear that I do not think an innerant Bible is necessary for belief in God, or for Christianity to be true. For the Christian God to be true, all that is necessary is that God exist and that He has acted in history, particularly in the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God is not under any compulsion to provide us with a written, yet alone inerrant record of His acts in history.
And yet God has chosen to provide us with a written record, and that record claims to be inspired by God, without making any distinction between spiritual and non-spiritual claims. And when we look at how Jesus and Paul used Scripture, they believed that it was authoritative and trustworthy down to the word, and even the tense of the word!
The doctrine of inerrancy is not only based on what the Bible says of itself, but also on the doctrine of God. If God was involved in the process so that what the authors wrote reflects what God wanted them to write (as Peter and Paul indicate), and God does not err, then what the authors wrote could not err. There may be errors that have crept in through copying (as I believe there are, particularly with number comparisons between Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles), but the originals themselves were without error. After all, God does not try. If He wanted to provide us with an accurate written account of His acts and will, then He could ensure that He was able to do so through the human authors.
The point of this post is merely to say that if we find the authors to be unreliable when it comes to recording matters that can be tested empirically, it makes it difficult to imagine that they should be trusted when they make claims that cannot be tested. If they flub up the easy and less-important stuff, they probably flubbed up the harder and more-important stuff as well. After all, would you trust a financial adviser to advise you on matters you aren’t familiar with if you find that he errs on basic matters of finance that you are familiar with? Doubtful. The same goes with the Biblical authors.
Jason
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Arthur,
The Catholics canonized all but three books of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent, 29 years after the beginning of the Reformation. Why would they do that if they were already considered canonical?
And you can look at what individual Christian leaders in the first few centuries of the church believed about the canon, and look at the local councils that ratified local canon lists, and you aren’t going to find that the Apocrypha was accepted by the church early on. Of course, you aren’t going to find all of them accepting only the 39 books of our OT either. I admit that. But there was never any widespread agreement of which, if any, of the Apocrypha were inspired.
Jason
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Jason,
You imply that by sometime around 400AD, it was generally agreed that the Apocrypha were not Scripture. But during the Reformation, the Catholic Church then “ordered” that the Apocrypha were Scripture.
The Catholics claim that the Apocrypha were considered Scripture up through the time of the Reformation, and RC church was forced to make a declaration on the issue because of the Reformers.
This is very important. If the Catholics added lots of books to Scripture out of spite, that’s terrible. If the Protestants ripped books out of Scripture because they disliked the truths of Scripture, that’s terrible. It’s particularly important for evangelicals because Scripture, not the Church, is the measure of truth.
Luckily, we don’t need to speculate. To learn the truth, we can look to old, independent churches that split from the Catholics long before the Reformation. If the Catholics added the Apocrypha to the canon during the Reformation, then all of the old churches will recognize the Protestant canon as Scripture. If the Catholics are right and Christians have recognized the Apocrypha as Scripture for centuries, then the old churches will agree with the Catholics and have the Apocrypha in their canons.
Answer: The Catholics are telling the truth.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Arthur,
Don’t you think you’d need to have some historical evidence as to when and who in the Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches said the Apocrypha is inspired? And wouldn’t you need to explain why the Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, and the Greek Orthodox church accept different books of the Apocrypha as Scripture? Given your line of reasoning, they should all have the same list.
Jason
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Jason,
Unless you’re alleging a massive conspiracy by the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and splinter Orthodox churches, I don’t think I need to know exactly who and when. They all claim that the Scriptures were generally understood, and there was never a need to make a formal declaration or they didn’t feel a need until fairly recent times.
The fact that there are some slight differences in their canons actually strengthens my argument. Because of the differences, you can’t argue that the other churches simply mirrored the Catholics after the Reformation. It pretty much precludes any conspiracy.
My line of reasoning doesn’t require the different churches to have the same list. It’s not surprising to me that different churches would have different lists, as they have always had such differences. The current Eastern Orthodox don’t seem troubled with the Russians having a slightly different list.
What I don’t see, though, is even a single pre-Reformation church accepting only the Protestant canon.
What is your explanation? Did all of the old churches, across the world, suddenly and surreptitiously begin to accept the Apocrypha as Scripture after the Reformation?
Arthur
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 3:28 pm
To clarify:
If the Protestants are right, all the other old churches should have exactly the same list as the Protestants. Still, if those churches had lists that were similar to the Protestant Bible but varied by a book or two, that would be enough to suggest that the Catholics were lying. Given the evidence, however, I’m forced to conclude that the Reformers were the ones lying.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 29, 2009 at 7:49 pm
First off, I just found this site and it’s like heaven in a basket…
Seriously, thank you much for this site…
Secondly, I do claim to be a member of the limited inerrancy school of thought (if one were to exist)…
I have seen C.S. Lewis referred to several times over in this post and it’s comments section and C.S. Lewis himself believed the bible to be materialistically flawed at parts (with contradiction), but had no problem with such a belief.
I have not heard Greg Koukl’s argument before this post but am not amused by his proof which is simply escapist.
Essentially, by his proof we cannot look at the material claims of contradiction within the bible (if they exist) because if they were true that would mean the Word is not true and therefore cannot be believed in for salvation. So then we mine as well not look at the apparent problems within the bible…Except by this argument, what if there are contradictions?
Do we just ignore them and stamp our feet and say they are not true and the Word is inerrant because the bible tells us so (which is a circular argument).
It seems he wants us to arrive at the above point or admit that the bible is flawed and therefore cannot be believed in for matters of salvation and therefore we must get on and find a different religion…
So Koukl is setting up quite the either/or wherein one cannot believe in the bible for salvation if we believes there to be historical error/contradiction. There is no in between….
Which is fine I suppose (though subtly circular)….
Except we have gone this entire post without looking at these claims of contradiction within the word and just got rid in the face saying the Word is perfect….
First we must look at the last words of Christ on the cross…
MAT 27:46,50: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” …Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.”
LUK 23:46: “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.”
JOH 19:30: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished:” and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
(One could arguably connect the Lukan account with the Mathian account, but there is really no room for the Johannine account)…
Secondly, 2KI 24:8 vs. 2CH 36:9…How old was Jehoiachin when he became King?
2 Samuel 24:13 vs. I Chronicles 21:12-How many years did God threaten Israel for a famine?
Perhaps most relevantly to this question, what about the chronology of the story of Jesus with the synoptic gospels in contrast to the gospel of John….
For instance, in the book of John there is clearly no time allowed in the narrative to go into the 40 days of temptation that the synoptic gospels all discuss just after Jesus was baptized…
Of course one could say the purpose of the book of John was not to tell the story chronologically….
And that is how I view the bible itself…the bible’s purpose is not with exact accuracy, but is more concerned with something grander in scale than getting a few numbers and quotes off…there is a bigger purpose than historical narrative….
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 9:04 am
The important thing is salvation (Acts 2:38)and living a Holy & Seperate life towards God!!!!
cg
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
Arthur,
I have to thank you for pressing this point, as it is an important topic, and one I personally need to study out more. Now I just need to find reputable sources!
I don’t know when the Orthodox, Coptic, or any others accepted the Apocrypha (or at least the parts of it that they accept). For all I know, their acceptance of those books could be a more modern phenomenon. That’s why I asked you about who declared that such books were Scripture, and when they declared it. To claim that the Reformers were lying without knowing this information seems a bit premature to me!
You haven’t even shown me that the Catholic Church had declared the Apocrypha to be Scripture prior to the Council of Trent. And think of the various church fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries which had conflicting views about the Apocrypha. How could it have always been considered Scripture if there wasn’t agreement even at that point? Even in Jerome’s Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic Church for more than a millennia, said they were not part of the canon.
I think your line of reasoning does require the different churches to have the same lists. You are arguing that the reason the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, and apparently the Russian Orthodox Church all individually accept the Apocrypha is because they had long accepted it prior to their break from Rome. But if that was the case, then we would expect for all of those churches to accept the same books from the Apocrypha that Rome accepts? And yet they all have slightly different lists. One of two things must be true. Either they all had the same books, but then altered their lists after separating from Rome, or they each adopted different parts of the Apocrypha after their break from Rome. I don’t know which is true, but the first seems unlikely. I have a difficult time imagining how a church would say that certain books we’ve believed are inspired, we know longer believe are inspired and we are excising them from the canon.
While the question of what Christians have believed about the Apocrypha historically is vitally important, it is not as important as the evidence of the books themselves. As Scott pointed out, there are reasons for thinking these books are not inspired. Many examples can be given, but consider Judith 1:5. It calls Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians, and even says he reigned in Ninevah. But Nebi was king of the Babylons! That is a huge error, undermining its credibility.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 11:12 am
Joel,
I’m glad you have found my blog to be enjoyable!
Koukl is not saying that we should ignore Biblical problems so as to maintain a certain view of inspiration. He is merely addressing the line of reasoning that says the Bible can be wrong on matters of history, geography, and science, but is not wrong on matters of salvation. Why would anyone trust what the Bible says on matters that they cannot verify, when they have found the bible to be untrustworthy on matters they can verify? It’s a credibility issue. A limited inerrantist cannot respond that God would ensure that what they said about salvation is inaccurate, because if that were true, then God should also be able to ensure that what they said about history and geography was true as well. If God is not able to keep the writers from erring on those points, why think He will be able to keep them from erring on matters of salvation?
Neither is Koukl saying that if we find any errors in the Bible, that none of it can be trusted. If historians worked this way, we wouldn’t know much of anything about history because they would have to throw out all their sources, as all of them contain falsities. The Bible would still be useful even if it was found to have inaccuracies. For example, there would still be certain historical truths that we could know about Jesus (death, burial, resurrection appearances, certain saying and deeds). But the issue of its credibility regarding its spiritual claims still raises its ugly head. While there is still some worth in an errant book, if there are so many errors in other areas, can you blame someone for being very skeptical about believing anything it says in matters they cannot verify empirically? Lawyers recognize this. That’s why they point out all the mistakes in a witnesses’ testimony. They recognize that the more errors they find in the testimony, the less believable their overall testimony becomes. The same is true of the authors of Scripture. They are serving as witnesses for YHWH. If their testimony is found to be fallacious on so many points, their overall message becomes less believable. However, if they are found to be accurate in their reporting on matters we can investigate and confirm, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt on matters we can’t.
As for the problems you raise, I was hoping this post would not devolve into countless discussions of purported Biblical errors. I don’t want to go down that important, but time consuming road. I will, however, say a few words. John is actually the most chronological of all the Gospels, so when it comes to chronology, what John says is probably more accurate. Secondly, the Gospel writers, like other writers in their time, employ literary devices such as telescoping (condensing events which take place over longer periods of time into a shorter period). We do this all the time. For example, I might be reporting an email exchange I had with an atheist to a friend of mine. In my report, it may sound like the dialogue took place in one day (he said, then I said, then he said…), when in reality it took place over several months. Furthermore, I’ll leave out significant portions at times, so that it sounds like one of my responses was to an objection he raised immediately before it, when it reality my response might be to an objection that he had raised a while back, but I had never responded to until much later in a different context.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 11:14 am
Cheryl,
Yes, that is very important, but determing whether Acts 2:38 is true is ultimately first in importance. That’s the issue here. Is the Bible fully inspired, or not. If it’s not, then it could be that Acts 2:38 is not inspired, and thus what you think is the most important issue may not be important at all.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 11:27 am
I found this information from an apparent church historian, Jack L. Arnold:
“The Apocrypha was rejected by Origen, who is generally acknowledged to have
been the most learned man in the church before Augustine; by Tertullian, an outstanding
scholar in the 3rd century; by Athanasius, the champion of orthodoxy at the Council of Nicea; and by Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, which became the authorized Roman Catholic Bible. (Jerome was finally persuaded to translate the Apocrypha, but made it clear that he did not believe them to be scripture). Melito, Bishop of Sardis (170 AD) gives his list of canon and none of the Apocrypha are listed. POINT: Probably most of the church fathers accepted the 24 books as canonical and the Apocrypha as having ecclesiastical value but not as inspired scripture.
“Originally the Eastern Church did not accept the Apocrypha but later yielded to pressure. However no official pronouncement has ever been made on the Apocrypha.”
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Jason,
I did not bring the errors up to necessarily debate (because that is so trivial), I did bring up such points as to demonstrate the fact that there can be a case made that there may be errors within the biblical text nor do I have any problems with the alleged contradictions….especially in light of my stance…
As to your addressing of the book of John and the narratives of Jesus, you are simply proving my point….The writers of the New Testament had a far bigger agenda than to be historically accurate. And led by the Holy Spirit, they wrote the gospels accordingly. If we are empiricists, I could use all the might in the world and say either Jesus did the 40 days of temptation after his baptism (synoptic gospels) OR He did not (the gospel of John does not allow for such a time period). Historically one of the accounts MUST be wrong. Which one is it?
But just as you pointed out, the purpose of the writers was not to be 100% accurate, but to convey a bigger picture…
And that is precisely what I was trying to convey in the entire story of the bible. I do not believe the bible is so concerned historically and scientifically to make sure all the pieces are exactly on pace when the text is more concerned with redemption that is only arrived at by FAITH (not provable).
If you have no problem explaining the differences in the narrative between the gospels, why cannot we not do the same with the entire bible?
I think it worthwhile to mention that I can’t stand Kant’s empiricism, and am very much a lover of all thing Kierkegaard (who posits that the distinction between the infinite and finite cannot be met by any human standards such as empiricism, but only by faith alone)…
And thus with Kierkegaard in mind, the bible is either the Word of God which can be understood by faith alone or it is a place of utter and despicable offnse and likewise false….
If the possibility of an Otherness is existent, Empiricism from a human perspective quickly becomes worthless in it’s finite ability to measure reality since you are acknowledging the possible existence of an Infinite otherness (who I call God).
And with that in mind, the bible cannot be proven as the word of God. I would be appalled to see people claiming otherwise.
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Jason,
Here is a good link of the Catholic view:
Still more Protestants claim that the Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon. This is also incorrect. Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon.[12] Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418).[13] All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.
This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397).[14] In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse,[15] the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical[16] Council of Florence in 1442.[17] When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.
http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28
More:
What really happened was that ever since the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century AD, the Christian faithful were taught that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture, and they were used as such. It was not, however, till 1546 that these books were solemnly and dogmatically defined as belonging to the canon, because it was not until then that the inspiration of those books was called into question. And no doctrine is defined till called into question.
http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html
See also:
http://www.nicenetruth.com/2009/04/responses-to-recent-protestant-objections-on-the-deuterocanon.html
What exactly would you consider to be proof that the Catholic Church (or another church) accepted the Apocrypha at any particular point in time?
The Catholics say that they don’t define terms of faith until those points are challenged, but that the essential teaching (at least in part) was there from the beginning. Thus, a church council defining a term of faith is not the origin of a dogma, but the codification of a belief that began with the church itself.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Still more Protestants claim that the Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon. This is also incorrect. Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon.[12] Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418).[13] All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon.
This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397).[14] In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse,[15] the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical[16] Council of Florence in 1442.[17] When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.
http://www.cuf.org/FaithFacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28
That’s the Catholic view. They had their canon (or canon and deuterocanon) settled for over 1000 years, nearly identical to that of the Orthodox, and the Protestants removed the books they objected to.
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Arthur,
But as I pointed out in a prior comment, it’s simply not true that the early church unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. Yes, a few councils and church fathers did, but that ignores those who didn’t.
Hillary of Poitiers (AD 315-367) had the normal 39, plus the Epistle of Jeremiah, Wisdom, possibly additonal Daniel material, 2 Maccabees, and possibly Baruch (not all the Apocrypha). Athanasius in had the normal 39 minus Esther, adding Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremiah, Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom from the Apocrypha. Cyril had the normal 39, plus Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah from the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Amphilochus had the normal 39 minus Esther, with no Apocrypha. Melito only added Wisdom from the Apocrypha. Origen had the normal 39, and included the letter of Jeremiah, Susanna, Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Baruch, 2 Maccabees, and the additions to Daniel and Esther.
Gregor of Nazianzus had the normal 39 minus Esther, and accepted Wisdom, Baruch, and Sirach from the Apocrypha.
Cyril of Jerusalem had the normal 39, plus Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah from the Apocrypha.
The Constitution of the Holy Apostles (380) has the normal 39, plus Judith, Sirach, and 1-3 Maccabees.
Jerome only had the normal 39, although I just discovered that later on, after completing the Vulgate, he did quote Sirach and Baruch as Scripture.
Rufinus (407) originally only had the normal 39, specifically saying Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees were not canonical. Later, however, he changed his mind
Codex Claromontanus (4th cent) thought Tobit, Judith, 1-2-4 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach were Scripture, but does not list Chronicles.
The Gelasian Decree ascribed to Pope Gelasius (5th cent) says Wisdom and Sirach are canonical.
Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) did not consider 1 Maccabees canonical.
John of Damascus (8th cent) held only to the normal 39 books.
The first Catholic Council to deal with the OT books was the ecumenical council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (1442), but it did not any of the named books were necessarily “canonical.” Trent was the first to do that. Even after Basel, Catholic scholars continued to disagree about the canonical status of the Apocrypha.
I don’t think this information gives either of our view a clear victory. What it shows is that many in the early church accepted some of the Apocrypha, while others didn’t. Some accepted more than others. There was no agreement on them until Trent (at least for the Catholic Church. I cannot speak to the Greek and Coptic churches). So to say that the church has always accepted all of the Apocrypha as canonical is just plain wrong. But it would be equally wrong of me to say they weren’t really considered canonical by anyone, as many did see some of them as canonical.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I haven’t had time to read it yet, but I’m told the material available at http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html is supposed to be good on this topic. Once I read it I will probably post some of the information, unless others beat me to it.
Jason
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Jason,
If the Protestant argument is that the Protestant canon was largely in place from 400AD until the Reformation, at which time the Catholics added the Apocrypha, I think that’s clearly false.
Yes, the Catholics didn’t have a 100% definitive canon until Trent. They didn’t need one. They have the Catholic Church itself as a crucible of truth. The same goes for the Eastern Orthodox, or any of the splinter Orthodox churches. So sure, you can find individual Catholics and Orthodox giving different opinions until the canons were defined.
The Russian Orthodox are a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are fully a part of the Orthodox. They can have a slightly different canon because it’s really not a big issue for them. They agree with the other Orthodox on the key issues. Unless and until there is an ecumenical council declaring the canon, they are free to disagree. (Obviously, they don’t recognize the Catholic’s Trent as an ecumenical council.)
There is substantial agreement, though, between the Catholics, the EO, and the independent Orthodox churches that the seven books that we call the Apocrypha are, in fact, Scripture. They disagree on whether there are some additional texts, but not on the seven. I think that’s significant.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Jason, the ChristianTruth site you provided seems to be propaganda.
For example,
The overall practice of the Western Church with respect to the canon from the time of Jerome (early fifth century) until the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome. The Apocryphal books were accorded a deuterocanonical status, but were not regarded as canonical in the strict sense. That is, they were not accepted as authoritative for the establishing of doctrine but were used for the purpose of edification. Thus, the Church retained the distinctions established by Jerome, Rufinus and Athanasius of ecclesiastical and canonical books.
That’s the Protestant view. It differs from the Catholic view, which can be found here in the black text of “Nicholas”:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/j4c-stjeromeontheapocrypha
The truth is found by asking the Eastern Orthodox, or the independent old Orthodox, about the status of these books. These churches were not a part of the Reformation, so they are unbiased. They support the Catholics.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Jason,
more point:
As to the claim above that Catholics, following Jerome, used the canonical OT to “establish doctrine” while the Apocrypha are used for merely for “edification”…
It’s Protestants (evangelicals) who use Scripture for establishing doctrine. The Catholics and Orthodox have traditions, and hold local and ecumenical councils to settle matters, and they don’t need to “prove” their teachings by citing to clear statements in Scripture. If they want to, a council or a Pope can make dogma without reference to any Scripture at all! And individual Catholics do not make such proofs, but defer to the Catholic Church.
So the whole argument based on Jerome, and Jerome’s words when placing the Apocrypha within a book of Scripture, betrays a Protestant misunderstanding of how Catholics think and reason. It’s not only not right, it’s not even wrong.
Arthur
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Jason,
Some points from a Catholic in a forum that I found with Google. The whole thread, though, is an interesting read:
We see the Deuteros UNIFORMALLY considered Inspired Scripture, kept in the canon, read from liturgically, cited in Ecumenical Councils as Scripture, and used in support of doctrinal teachings. The only “blip” on the screen is when some Fathers – and some academic followers in the Middle Ages – promoted the notion that these INSPIRED SCRIPTURES, included IN THE BIBLE, read from IN THE LITURGY, should be used for edification and not for doctrine…even though…MANY of these same people often cited them in support of doctrine nonetheless.
And from that Luther et.al. got the idea that the canon was up for grabs and he started messing with BOTH Testaments, including several NT books. That is the “uniform practice” of Protestantism.
…
As for the Orthodox, I will still submit that they view the deuteros as inspired Scripture (which means that even if an Orthodox Church here or there puts them in an ecclesial category they haven’t thrown out the baby with the bathwater like Protestants have done) – even those that they don’t read liturgically. To this day the Greek Orthodox Church does not read Revelation in their liturgy…to them the book is not canonical…however…they absolutely affirm that the book is Inspired Scripture.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7236988-3/
Arthur
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 6:30 pm
The Orthodox on the Apocrypha, from an official Orthodox site:
QUESTION:
What is the position of the Orthodox Church regarding the books that the Protestant churches refer to as the Apocrypha? Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, etc.
ANSWER:
The Old Testament books to which you refer — know in the Orthodox Church as the “longer canon” rather than the “Apocrypha,” as they are known among the Protestants — are accepted by Orthodox Christianity as canonical scripture. These particular books are found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, but not in the Hebrew texts of the rabbis.
These books — Tobit, Judah, more chapters of Esther and Daniel, the Books of Maccabees, the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Sirach, the Prophecy of Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh — are considered by the Orthodox to be fully part of the Old testament because they are part of the longer canon that was accepted from the beginning by the early Church.
The same Canon [rule] of Scripture is used by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Jerusalem Bible (RC) these books are intermingled within the Old Testament Books and not placed separately as often in Protestant translations (e.g., KJV).
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=35&SID=3
Arthur
LikeLike
September 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Another Orthodox site:
3. Can You Tell Me How Many Books Are There In The Orthodox Bible?
The Old Testament
The official version of the Old Testament authorized by the Orthodox Church for use in worship and reading is that of the Septuagint. The number of books in the Septuagint Old Testament edition of the Bible are forty-nine books, twenty-seven in the New Testament. There are seventy-six books in both collections of the Bible. In the King James English Version of the Bible, or as it is commonly called –the Authorized Version, ten books are omitted from the Old Testament. These ten books were rejected by Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German reformers. In the English Bible they were placed in a inferior position, until they were finally omitted altogether about a century ago. The Roman Catholic edition omits two books from the Old Testament. The Council of Trent, in the third session (1546), excludes Ist Esdras and the 3rd Maccabees that was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870. The preservation of all the Holy Books of the Holy Bible expresses the vigilance of the Orthodox Church in guarding and preserving the Bible and its truth throughout the ages unadulterated.
http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm
Note that! The Orthodox have a couple extra books and accuse the Catholics of removing them. The Orthodox have always included the Apocrypha as Scripture. They didn’t add them after the Reformation.
All the independent sources are of accord on this, except for self-serving information provided by Protestants. QED.
Arthur
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 7:53 am
There are a lot of comments here that I did not get the chance to read over, so please forgive me if I’m repeating something that’s already been stated here.
Although I believe the Bible to be accurate in matters of history, science, etc. as well as spiritual matters, I do not accept Koukl’s reasoning as I believe it elevates empirical knowledge above other ways of knowing–which is Koukl’s own argument against materialism.
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Krazeeboi,
I don’t see how he is doing that. He’s merely making the observation that credibility is earned. Limited inerrantists are telling us that we should believe everything the Biblical authors tell us about spiritual matters, but not what they tell us about non-spiritual matters. But if they have proven themselves to make mistakes in areas that we can test them on, why should we think that they haven’t made any errors on matters that we can’t test them on? The limited inerrantist can’t say it’s because God would ensure that they did not make errors in those areas, because if God’s involvement could ensure that they didn’t make errors in those areas, why couldn’t His involvement make sure they didn’t commit errors in non-spiritual matters? It’s a credibility issue.
If I told you I saw a UFO last night, but in my description of the event I report many inaccuracies about things that you can test (perhaps saying the moon was full when in reality there was a quarter moon last night), that only serves to undermine my credibility. If I can’t be trusted in my report of the credible, why trust my report about something that is incredible and untestable? That’s Koukl’s point. He is not privileging empiricism as a way of knowing.
Jason
LikeLike
October 2, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Joel,
Actually, I don’t think debating the apparent errors is trivial at all. I think it is extremely important. It’s just so time consuming, and the comments section in a blog is not the best place to do it.
I did not say that any of the authors were not being historically accurate. They simply were not trying to present every detail, and would leave stuff out that they did not think important for their point. For example, one Evangelist speaks of two angels at the tomb of Jesus whereas another speaks of only one. This isn’t a contradiction. One Evangelist only felt the need to mention one, probably because only one of them served as the spokesman and delivered the message. We do the same thing in our own recounting of events. In fact, I once saw an apologist compare three different newspapers all reporting on the same story. The details differed. It’s not that any of them had their facts wrong, but they all chose to report certain things and leave other things out. The same goes for the Gospel writers.
Why do you say John did not allow for 40 days of temptation?
I don’t care for Kant or Kierkegaard. I think both of them were extreme. Empiricism and existentialism are both false in my book. Faith is not entirely rational, but it has a rational core to it. The faith that was held by those in the Bible was not a blind leap in the dark, but based on evidence.
The Bible cannot be proven in the strictest sense to be God’s word, but there are many reasons for thinking that it is the Word of God. That’s not to dismiss the subjective witness that people might have for believing it, but that is not all we have to go on.
Jason
LikeLike
October 2, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Arthur,
I have not had a chance to read your last spate of posts. I have been busily reading the information at the link I provided earlier. I hope you’ll read it to. It’s packed with historical information, and it demonstrates that while many in the early church accepted part or all of the Apocrypha as Scripture, there were others who did not, and that the majority view within the Catholic Church up to the time of the Reformation was that the Apocrypha was useful, but not part of the canon. The great part about the information is that he provides all the quotes from the fathers, councils, and theologians to back up his points. I plan on going through it again this weekend or next week and pulling out some of the most important data and posting it here, but here is a great summary of points made by the author, William Webster:
1. The Jews who were entrusted with the inspired Scriptures did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical.
2. Jesus, in particular, did not quote from the Apocryphal books and he stated that the canonical Scriptures were comprised of the three fold division of the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.
3. Many of the early Church fathers followed the Jewish canon in rejecting the Apocrypha from canonical status.
4. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were provincial Councils which did not have the authority to establish the canon for the Church as a whole.
5. The book of Septuagint I Esdras which was decreed by Hippo and Carthage to be canonical was laterrejected by the Council of Trent.
6. The majority view of the leading theologians from the fifth century up to the time of the Reformation followed Jerome in denying the Apocrypha full canoniocal status.
7. Gregory the Great, as the bishop of Rome, taught that the Apocrypha was not canonical.
8. The official biblical commentary of the middle ages used for the training of all theologians taught that the Apocrypha, while useful for reading and edification, was notconsidered canonical and had no authority for establishing points of doctrine.
9. It was not until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century that the canon was officially and authoritatively established for the Roman Catholic Church.
10. The internal discrepancies which abound in certain books of the Apocrypha disqualify it as truly inspired and canonical.
Jason
LikeLike
October 4, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Jason,
First, in regards to Kierkegaard, I was not referencing existentialism, but rather Kierkegaard in Fear & Trembling…and with that he focuses on the story of Abraham as the basis of faith. Abraham, the man who was far too old to have a kid, but yet still continued in faith towards a future son. There was no right logic or reason within the human capacity to believe that Abraham would be able to have a child with Sarah…this is the knight of faith who sees the contradiction of his circumstances that are in the physical and rationale and still believes in the infinite beyond the physical (which the physical can never lend credence to because of the infinite space between the two realms). Your faith may have a little bit of reason mixed in, but I would argue that this is not faith in it’s purest…
The faith which adds reason to it is essentially Hagar as the concubine to birth Abraham’s seed…it was entirely reasonable for Hagar to be substituted instead of Sarah, but it was in contradiction to the unreasonable (logically) will of God….
Do you see the difference? It’s not that reason has no place with faith, but as Kierkegaard says, all reason and apologetics can do is guide you to the point of decision of whether you want to make the infinite leap. There is no mixture once the leap is made.
Secondly, in regards to John…I used the 40 days of temptation as an example…
Read Matthew 3-4, Luke 3-4, and then John 1 (starting at the baptismal accounts of Jesus and then noticing the specificity of “then” in each of the books)….Matthew and luke are in complete agreement. Jesus gets baptized and THEN is led into the wilderness….What you must also notice is that Jesus goes to Galilee after the 40 days of temptation….
In john 1, there is a daily report of key events starting with the baptism and then records Jesus’ actions the following days literally with the reference of “the next day”….these “next days” repeat 3 times (into John 2:1) and then show Jesus heading into Galilee…Notice no place for the temptation…there is not even a place where John could have skipped over the story choosing to ignore it but just skipping that time period altogether simply because John is too specific in his chronology….
Once again we can argue the narrators are just giving two different accounts of the same story (which I do agree with), but the point I am making is EITHER Jesus went into the desert and was tempted for 40 days after his baptism and then into Galilee(synoptic gospels) OR He went straight into Galilee after His baptism (John). One of the accounts is historically true, which negates the chronology of the other…
Of course this was just an example…this happens several other times in the book of John where the chronology is simply just completely different the the others….In john 2 we see Jesus entering the temple and getting angry at those making profit, which of course we know happens at the very end of Jesus’ ministry in the synoptic gospels….
And once again, let me reiterate the point…I am not trying to put the Word into question…I am simply saying we should not make the Word out to be something it never claims to be and that is inerrant in modernistic sense…(which of course I was trying to show that the bible is in contradiction at parts in a modernistic sense with these couple examples used in the post)….
LikeLike
October 5, 2009 at 11:27 am
Joel,
John is the most chronological, but even he is not entirely chronological. A lot of the material in the Gospels is arranged thematically. And just because an author uses “then” does not mean that what they report next is the very next thing that happened. It’s not as though the Gospel writers are trying to record a day-by-day, event-by-event, chronological biography of Jesus. While at times it is clear that they are being chronological, most of the time they aren’t. But that is not a mark against them, or the historicity of the events. We can’t fault them for not doing what they never intended to do.
Given the nature of their writing, I don’t see any basis for saying that John excludes the possibility of the 40 day temptation in the wilderness. He simply does not record it. To say it was excluded, one would have to have a full, 1095 day account of Jesus’ activity, and point out that none of those daily reports includes a 40-day temptation in the wilderness account. That’s now what we have in the Gospels, however. There are many things John does not record that the Synoptics do. John has a different agenda than they did, and covers different periods of time and events than they did. John, you’ll note, is the only author to cover Jesus’ early ministry in Judea and Samaria. The Synoptics pick up the story after that time period.
Jason
LikeLike
October 16, 2009 at 9:00 am
Arthur,
The Catholics don’t just use tradition to establish doctrine. It’s Scripture + tradition. That this is clear can be witnessed by their apologists. They try to make a Biblical case for even their most unbiblical traditions such as the immaculate conception of Mary. If they were not interested in Scripture for establishing doctrine, they would not attempt such an apology.
As for that Catholic Forum, that is utter nonsense. Webster chronicled church father after church father who has rejected the Apocrypha down through the centuries. And Luther never messed with the NT. He questioned James, but never said it was not canonical.
As for saying Revelation is inspired Scripture but not canonical makes as much sense as saying water is wet but not hydrated. The canon is the collection of inspired books.
As for the Orthodox church, I have not read as much on them, but the fact that they disagree with the Catholics on the Apocrypha says something. And it doesn’t do any good to just look at what they say today. One must look at what the bishops in their geography were saying prior to the split and after the split up to the present. I haven’t done so yet, but that needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn.
You are really bagging on Protestants in this thread. Aren’t you a Protestant?
Jason
LikeLike
October 16, 2009 at 9:00 am
Arthur,
The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha. Even Josephus and Philo, who used the LXX, did not accept it. The only confusion was in the church fathers, largely because of their disconnect from the Jewish community, and because the OT translation they used (LXX) apparently included at least some of the Apocrypha. They, not being familiar with the Jewish canon, assumed that the LXX reflected the Jewish canon since the LXX was supposed to be a translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews.
While many early church fathers (particularly in the West) saw some of the Apocrypha as inspired, you will be hard pressed to find many who accepted all of it. Instead, you’ll find that most of the early church fathers rejected all, or most of the Apocrypha. They saw it as beneficial, but not canonical Scripture.
Augustine thought the Apocrypha was inspired, while Jerome did not (as reflected in his commentary in the Vulgate). From the 5th century on there was no universal agreement on the status of the Apocrypha, but the majority of church leaders/scholars followed Jerome rather than Augustine in thinking it was useful for Christians but not part of the canon. The most authoritative Catholic commentary, The Glossa Ordinaria, rejected their canonicity. This was the standard Biblical commentary used by the Catholic Church for centuries. Even Luther’s Catholic nemesis, Cardinal Cajetan, said the Apocrypha was not inspired in a set of commentaries he wrote for Pope Clement VII (1532). This was just 17 years before Trent declared them to be canonical! Given the impressive list Webster compiled of Catholic scholars/bishops who did not accept the Apocrypha during the Middle Ages, you can hardly say it is propaganda! He even includes the peoples’ quotes for goodness sake. So it is fairly accurate to say the Protestant OT canon was largely in place from AD 400 to the Reformation.
Jason
LikeLike
October 16, 2009 at 9:00 am
Arthur,
I think this comes down to two issues. (1) Do we accept the Jewish canon, or do we accept what some of the early church fathers believed? (2) What independent reasons do we have for thinking the Apocrypha is inspired, and thus part of the canon?
In regards to (2), we have already addressed some of the reasons to think the books are not inspired. So what about (1)? The evidence is pretty clear that the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture, even though they held many of the books in high regard. When you add to this the fact that Jesus speaks of a tripartite division of canonical books, Paul said the Jews have been entrsuted with the oracles of God (Rom 3:2), and that according to 1st century Jewish authors the number and order of canonical books was already a settled tradition, it stands to reason that the canon was settled for all intents and purposes in Jesus’ day, and He endorsed a canon without the Apocrypha. I choose to side with Jesus and the Jews to whom the oracles of God were committed, rather than early church fathers who accepted the Apocrypha largely due to ignorance of the Hebrew Bible.
Jason
LikeLike
April 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm
NIV BIBLE QUIZ
——————————————————————————–
INTRUCTIONS: Using the New International Versionª Bible (NIV), answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.).
1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. “Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you.”
2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?
3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate’s first name?
5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:
7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain’s name? What did the chief captain command?
21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, “I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:”
Conclusion: Little space is provided for your answers, but it’s much more than needed. If you followed the instructions above, you not only failed the test, you receive a big goose egg. So now what do you think of your “accurate, easy-to-understand, up-to-date Bible”? If these 25 questions haven’t served to show you that the NIV is a very inferior Bible, based on a very inferior Greek text, write me and I’ll make up another quiz with 25 more questions, or 250, if you wish; but you will still flunk the text. If you would like to improve your score, and in fact score 100%, you can take this test using the Authorized (King James) Bible .
by Rex L. Cobb
——————————————————————————–
NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to…
tell God, OUT LOUD,
that the NIV is correct in deleting these words & phrases?
If not, you need to get a King James Bible
so you can have some confidence.
——————————————————————————–
LikeLike
December 28, 2010 at 7:58 am
Why do people say that Bible is the final authority without enough justification? May be you don’t know this; the assurance we seek from religion is more than that we seek in science. We don’t care much if snake have legs or not no scientist have treatened us on that in case we don’t beleive. So what we need from a christian is a full demonstration, better than the poor once provided by science. But they say faith is beleiving an idea like ‘the bible is the word of God’ because of EVIDENCE. So what? I can also deny it because of evidence. What i am interested in is; who is right? So faith is actually trusting some God you know intimately so that you beleive what he says even if it is contrary to the evidence. So christians build a house with no foundations. First of all show us your God before telling us what he is saying. Demonstrate first fully that a message is indeed from God and the rest will just be a piece of cake.you will need not open bible for me because i have one and i can do it myself.
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Kirui,
I hear what you are saying, but it’s not clear to me what kind of response you are expecting or wanting.
The Biblical idea of faith is not believing in something without any evidence, yet alone believing something that is contrary to the evidence.
Jason
LikeLike
March 15, 2011 at 5:12 am
Faith is not beleiving something it is beleiving someone. You didn’t get me!
LikeLike
March 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm
You are establishing a false dichotomy. You can’t believe someone unless you believe specific things about them. While the object of faith is a person, the content of faith requires information.
Jason
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 9:40 am
No! Until you KNOW specific things about someone.
LikeLike
March 20, 2011 at 10:38 am
Or do you mean I can’t say I beleive God (someone) without meaning that I beleive what he says(something)? If yes, you are correct. A beleif turns to faith if it is based on knowledge that what you beleive is what God said. Once you have known that a word is from God and thus you don’t doubt its truthfulness, even if the evidence is contrary, based on trust in God is when you are termed as a man of faith. Pleace not that this is not a blind faith.
If you doubt the truthfulness of a word because you doubt wether the word is from God, even if it is backed by evidence, you cannot be termed as to lack faith. Rather your faith is doing its opposite function; creating reasonable doubt.
Consider Abraham, that sacrificing Isaac and again his discendants will come from Isaac seems contradictory. He only beleived because he was convinced that the command was from God. Not because it was a plausible thing to do. Thus he was termed as a man of faith.
What about the men of today? They donnot start by proper knowledge of God. Beleive abstract ideas and these are termed as faith. I hope you get my point. Without a person behind, the concept of faith is simply meaningless. ‘That a word is from God’ is something to be known not beleived. It is the contents of the word that are beleived based on the knowledge or convictions that the word is of God. Get it?
Thanks for your promt replies. I like God issues.
LikeLike