During the first first century, names of official government position changed of ten. In spite of this fact, Luke has been found to precisely identify those he names with their correct titles. For example, when Cyprus switched from imperial province to senatorial province in 22 BC, the ruler's title changed as well. Still, Luke correctly identifies Sergios Paullus as "proconsul" of Cyprus rather than by his old title, "imperial legate." Luke also correctly designates the governor of Achaia and Asia as proconsuls since they were under the senate's jurisdiction rather than that of the emperor. Achaia was first under the senate from 27 BC to AD 15, then under the emperor until AD 44, and again under the senate from that time on. In Philippi, Luke's term "praetors" for the chief magistrates reflects a peculiar egotistical practice confirmed by Cicero: "Although they are called duumvirs in the other colonies, these men wished to be called praetors." Concerning Luke's accuracy in Acts 17:6, an Australian scholar, David Hyle, has published a comprehensive review of the Quirinuis issue. He asserts:
"It is relevant to note at this point that Luke is the only ancient author to have preserved the term politarches (Acts 17:6). Any doubts of his reliability in this respect have been shattered by discovery of nineteen different inscriptions attesting the title in Thessalonica and Macedonia generally." (HaDJ.RS11 30)
In Acts 28:7, Luke calls Publius "the first man of the island," a title confirmed by Greek and Latin inscriptions as the correct reference to the ruler of Malta at that time
Though Matthew and Mark record the popular designation for Herod Antipas, "king," Luke refers to him by him by his official title of "tetrarch." As much as Antipas desired it, the Romans granted royal status only to his father, Herod the Great, and not to him. Critics used to charge Luke with an error in Luke 3:1, where he speaks of Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene. The only Lysanias of Abilene known to modern historians until recently was a "king" by that name, one who was executed by Mark Antony in 34 BC. But once again Luke prevailed over modern critics when an inscription dated between AD 14 and 29 referred to, you guessed it, "Lysanias the tetrarch," a ruler during that time. (RaW.BRD15 297ff.)
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Question of Quirinuis part 3
Fact #6. Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23) when he began his ministry shortly after John the Baptist began his in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceaser" (Luke3:1,2). Boehner states:
"Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated for. A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, He would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old." (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of their deposition of Archelaus, the Roman takeover of all his material goods, and the revolt of Judas ofGalilee (also called "a Gaulanite").
Lukes Accuracy and Quirinuis Rulership of Syria
The mystery of the whole problem, which Luke seems to know and archaeologists haven't yet discovered, is how Quirinuis could have been ruling Syria in or about 5 BC. The governor of Syria are all known from 12 BC until 4 BC. We do know that Quirinuis was an effective military leader and administrator and that he held several positions of highest ranked in and around Syria from as early as 12 BC until AD 7. Sometime between 12 BC and AD 1, Quirinuis was in charge of the Homanadensian War, which was going on in a province neighboring Syria. Emily Schurer, the dominant of the nineteenth century in this field, demonstrated that Syria was the most likely province from which Quirinuis could have conducted the war which Quirinuis as governor of Syria for a first term from 3 to 2 BC (ScE.HJP90 1:352) Ramsay, however, based on inscriptional evidence, believed that Quirinuis was part of a cogovernorship about 8 to 6 BC. (Raw.BRD15 292-300) Finegan reasons:
"The resistance of the Homanadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinuis could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson was documented that Quirinuis was highly successful in his mission against the Homanadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinuis was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servilius, designated to act for him. (HuE.PF 15:106)
Quirinuis' great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC to 4 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus
"was a man from whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for a special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 BC., an untried man. The census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 BC., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlanders, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost the favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinuis' intervention, the requisite organizations, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of 5 BC, a reasonable date."
It is likely that Quirinuis held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinuis was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some way governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt most be given to the author, not arrogated by the critic to himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for historical accuracy?
"Since the fifteenth year of Tiberius can be dated for. A.D. 27 to 29, it would mean that if Christ were born in A.D. 6, He would only have been twenty-one to twenty-three years old, not about thirty years old." (HoH.C 19)
Some argue that if a census had occurred in 6 or 5 BC, Josephus would have said something about it. But this is an argument from silence which is invalidated by the fact that probably the only reason Josephus mentions the AD 6 census is that it was highlighted by the tumultuous events of their deposition of Archelaus, the Roman takeover of all his material goods, and the revolt of Judas ofGalilee (also called "a Gaulanite").
Lukes Accuracy and Quirinuis Rulership of Syria
The mystery of the whole problem, which Luke seems to know and archaeologists haven't yet discovered, is how Quirinuis could have been ruling Syria in or about 5 BC. The governor of Syria are all known from 12 BC until 4 BC. We do know that Quirinuis was an effective military leader and administrator and that he held several positions of highest ranked in and around Syria from as early as 12 BC until AD 7. Sometime between 12 BC and AD 1, Quirinuis was in charge of the Homanadensian War, which was going on in a province neighboring Syria. Emily Schurer, the dominant of the nineteenth century in this field, demonstrated that Syria was the most likely province from which Quirinuis could have conducted the war which Quirinuis as governor of Syria for a first term from 3 to 2 BC (ScE.HJP90 1:352) Ramsay, however, based on inscriptional evidence, believed that Quirinuis was part of a cogovernorship about 8 to 6 BC. (Raw.BRD15 292-300) Finegan reasons:
"The resistance of the Homanadensians must have been broken by the time the net of Roman roads was laid out in the province of Galatia in 6 B.C.; therefore, at least the major part of this war must have been over by the date... Quirinuis could have been free to attend to other business in the East." (FiJ.BC 236-36)
English Canon E.C. Hudson was documented that Quirinuis was highly successful in his mission against the Homanadensians. More than 4,000 prisoners were taken, Quirinuis was awarded the distinction of a triumph, and those of the colony of Pisidian Antioch elected him honorary duumvir, or chief magistrate, with a perfect, M. Servilius, designated to act for him. (HuE.PF 15:106)
Quirinuis' great ability contrasts vividly with the inexperience of Quinctilius Varus, official governor of Syria from 7 or 6 BC to 4 BC. Blaiklock, having investigated the evidence at length, shows that Varus
"was a man from whom Augustus may justifiably have entertained no great regard. Augustus, above all, was an able judge of men, and it was Quinctilius Varus, who in AD 9, reprehensibly lost three legions in the Teutoburger forest in Germany, one of the most shocking disasters to Roman arms in the century. Assuming that Augustus had some misgivings over the ability of Varus to handle an explosive situation, it is easy to see a reason for a special intrusion, under other direction, in the affairs of Varus' province. A reasonable reconstruction might assume that Varus came to Syria in 7 BC., an untried man. The census was due in Palestine in 8 or 7 BC., and it could well be that Augustus ordered the man who had just successfully dealt with the problem of the Pisidian highlanders, to undertake the delicate task. Herod I had recently lost the favor of the emperor, and may have been temporizing about the taking of the census, a process which always enraged the difficult Jews. Quirinuis' intervention, the requisite organizations, and the preparation for the census, could easily have postponed the actual date of registration to the end of 5 BC, a reasonable date."
It is likely that Quirinuis held a ruling position over Syria by special commission. There is a key confirmation: Luke 2:2 allows for this leadership arrangement since the Greek term used does not specify that Quirinuis was the official governor of Syria, only that he was in some way governing, ruling or leading Syria.
The dictum of Aristotle, commonly followed for all works of antiquity, is that the benefit of the doubt most be given to the author, not arrogated by the critic to himself. The reason classical scholars follow this practice (and why New Testament critics ought to as well) is that the author of classical work, being much closer to the events in question, has decided advantage in knowing details of the situation which the critic, removed from the event by centuries of time, has no way of knowing. Therefore it is one thing to claim a historical contradiction but quite another to prove it.
Since the historical documentation of ancient times in general of Syria at this time in particular is scanty, can we trust Luke for historical accuracy?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The Question of Quirinuis part 2
Fact #4. In AD 6, Palestine was no longer under the rule of one king, but split up into several tetrarchies. Therefore, it would have been almost impossible for Joseph and Mary to be required to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem as Luke reports unless it was prior to the death of Herod the Great. In order to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in AD 6, Joseph and Mary would hve fled to leave Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas and travel to Judea, now under direct control of the Roman government, which had just deposed Archelaus. But, as Wayne Brindle points out, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem "would have taken care place only if there were one central authority over Palestine - such as only during the reign of Herod the Great."
Facts #5. Luke 2:4 indicates that the census was in accordance with an empire-wide policy of registering all the people. This does not specify that all provinces were enrolled at the same time, only that Augustus was, as Hoehner states, "the first one in history to order, a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly rather than only only one time. (HoH.C 15)
The renowned archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, affirmed: "The first enrollment in Syria was made in the year 8-7 B.C., but a consideration of the situation in Syria and Palestine about that time will show that the enrollment in Herod's kingdom was probably delayed for some time later.
This would put the census of Luke 2:2 in about 6 or 5 BC, just before Herod's death.
The Question of Quirinuis part 1
Probably the most difficult apparent historical contradiction having to do with the Gospels concerns Luke's report about a census taken while Quirinuis governed Syria (Luke 2:2). Ian Wilson castigates Luke as follows:
And after telling us that the announcement of the births of Jesus and John the Baptist took place in the reign of Herod the Great, who is known to have died in 4 BC, the Luke author tries to offer a piece of impressive historical detail:
Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census-the first-took place while Quirinuis was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered (Luke 2:1-3).
While the first-ever census among Jews did indeed take place during Quirinuis governorship, this did not and could not have happened until at least 6 AD, the first year that Judea came under direct Roman rule, and it was reliably recorded by Josephus as an unprecedented event of that year. To put it bluntly, Luke has resorted to invention. (WiLJTE 55)
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. On some points Wilson is correct. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March of April of 4 BC. A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinuis in AD 6. But there is other evidence Wilson has ignored.
Fact #1 In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census the census, the well known one of AD 6.
Fact #2 The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that of AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2. "This was the first census taken while Quirinuis was governor of Syria." It seems to us to be a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling Syria." If there had been only the one very well-known census AD 6 under Quirinuis, Luke would have said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinuis..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:2 seems most definitely to indicate that Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
Fact #3 Josephus confirms that the rebellion AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
1. Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinuis
2. The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most Diplomatic solution would be for Quirinuis to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of David, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exception. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt.
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceaser Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Ceasar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death. The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
And after telling us that the announcement of the births of Jesus and John the Baptist took place in the reign of Herod the Great, who is known to have died in 4 BC, the Luke author tries to offer a piece of impressive historical detail:
Now at this time Ceasar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the whole world to be taken. This census-the first-took place while Quirinuis was governor of Syria, and everyone went to his home town to be registered (Luke 2:1-3).
While the first-ever census among Jews did indeed take place during Quirinuis governorship, this did not and could not have happened until at least 6 AD, the first year that Judea came under direct Roman rule, and it was reliably recorded by Josephus as an unprecedented event of that year. To put it bluntly, Luke has resorted to invention. (WiLJTE 55)
The census caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem just prior to Jesus' birth. On some points Wilson is correct. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born before the end of the reign of Herod the Great. It has been established with reasonable certainty that Herod's death took place in March of April of 4 BC. A census, not necessarily the first, was taken by Quirinuis in AD 6. But there is other evidence Wilson has ignored.
Fact #1 In Acts 5:37, Luke refers to the AD 6 census, indicating that he is conscious of where it fits in the chronology of the period. Luke calls this census the census, the well known one of AD 6.
Fact #2 The Greek text of Luke 2:2 suggests a lesser known census prior to that of AD 6. The New American Standard Version translates Luke 2:2. "This was the first census taken while Quirinuis was governor of Syria." It seems to us to be a faithful rendering of the sense of the Greek text which most literally reads: "This census, a first one, coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling, leading Syria." Since the Greek language often leaves out the word "is," it needs to be inserted and most naturally fits the word "census." The sentence literally reads, "This census is a first one coming to pass when Quirinuis is ruling Syria." If there had been only the one very well-known census AD 6 under Quirinuis, Luke would have said simply, "This is the census coming to pass when Quirinuis..." We have no knowledge of any census taken after AD 6. Therefore, the grammar of Luke 2:2 seems most definitely to indicate that Luke wants his readers to disregard the AD 6 census and think of an earlier, lesser known census of approximately 5 BC.
Fact #3 Josephus confirms that the rebellion AD 6 was a response to an enrollment (census) probably carried out rather heavy-handedly. In contrast, the Luke 2:2 census seems to have appealed to the custom of the Jews. At that time, about 5 BC, the Romans would have had two problems:
1. Herod ruled Judea, not Quirinuis
2. The people didn't like the Romans messing in their affairs
From the standpoint of the Romans, the most Diplomatic solution would be for Quirinuis to negotiate a census carried out under Herod's auspices and according to Jewish practice of registration by tribes. Thus Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, the city of David, and Joseph's "own city." The Romans' negotiating for this arrangement is indicated by the fact that they normally conducted censuses based on land ownership, not on hometowns. Occasionally, however, the Romans did make exception. An Egyptian papyrus of AD 104 indicates that the Egyptians were required to return to their home city for the Roman census in Egypt.
But would Herod have been willing to acquiesce to such an arrangement? Most definitely, for Josephus records that he fell into disfavor with Ceaser Augustus, being demoted from "friend" to "subject." He would have needed to do whatever the Romans wanted him to do in order to regain Ceasar's favor. Herod was close to death and having problems deciding on a successor. He changed his will three times and killed three sons before deciding on Archelaus five days before his death. The imminent death of Herod was further incentive for the the Romans to have a census taken in preparation for a change of rulers.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Inerrancy: Can the Bible Be Trusted?
If the Bible is the Word of God, it should be in complete agtreement throughout; there should be no contrandictions. Yet, the rational mind must ask, why is it that some passages appear to be contradictions when compared with others? For example, Numbers 25:9 tells us that 24,000 died from the scourge, wgereas at 1 Corinthians 10:8, the apostle Paul says it was 23,000. This would seem to be a clear error. Before addressing such matters, we first need to look at some background information.
Full inerrancy means that that the original writings are fully without error in all that they state, as are the words. The words were not dictated (automaton), but the intended meaning is inspired, as are the words that convey that meaning. The Author allowed the writer to use his style of writing, yet controlled the meaning to the extent of not allowing the writer to choose a wrong word, which would not convey the intended meaning. Other more libera-minded persons hold with partial inerrancy, which claims that as far as faith is concerned, this portion of God's Word is without error, but that there are historical, geographical, and scientific errors.
There are sevral different levels of inerrancy. Absolute Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is fully true and exact in every way; including not only relationships and doctrine, but also science and history. In other words, all information is completely exact. Full Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible was not written as science or historical textbook, but is phenomenological, in that it is written from the human perspective. In other words, speaking of such things as the sun rising, the four corners of the earth, or the rounding off of number approximations are all from a human perspective. Limited Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is meant only as a reflection of God's purpose and will, so the science and history is the understanding of author's day, and is limited. Thus, the Bible is susceptible to errors in these areas. Inerrancy of Purpose is the belief that it is only inerrant in the purpose of bringing its readers to a saving faith. The Bible is not about facts, but about persons and relationships, thus it is subject to error. Inspired: Not Inerrant is the belief that its authors are human and thus subject to human error. It should be noted that this author holds the position of full inerrancy.
For many today, the Bible is nothing more than a book written by men that are full of myths and legends, contradictions, and geographical, historical, and scientific errors. University professor Gerald A. Larue had this to say, "The views of the writers as expressed in the Bible reflect the ideas, beliefs, and concepts current in their own times and are limited by the extent of knowledge in those times." On the other hand, the Bible's claims are quite different.
2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB): All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be compelte, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:21 (ESV): For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The question remains as to whether the Bible is a book written by imperfect men and full of errors, or is written by imperfect men, but inspired of God. If the Bible is just another book by imperfect man, there is no hope for humankind. If it is inspired of Godf and without error, although penned by imperfect menm we have the hop of everyting that it offers: a rich happy life now by applying counsel that lies within and the real life that is to come, everlasting life. The Bible is inspired of God and free of human error, although written by imperfect humans.
The critic's argument goes something like this: 'If God does no err and the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible should not have one single error or contradiction, yet it is full of errors and contradictions.' If the Bible is riddled with nothing but contradictions and errors as the critics would have us believe, why, out of 31,1173 verses in the Bible, should there be only 2-3 thousand Bible difficulties that are called into question, this being less than ten percent of the whole?
First, let it be said that is is every Chrisitan's obligation to get a deeper understanding of God's Word, just as the apostle Paul tod Timoth:
1 Ttimothy 4:15, 16 (ESV): Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul also told the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 10:4 (NET): For the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguements and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ.
Paul also told the Philippians:
Philippians 1:7 (ESV): It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
The orginally writeen books were penned by men under inspirtion. In fact, we do not have those originals, what textual scholars call autographs, but we do have thousans of copies. The copyists, however, were not inspired; therefore, as one might expect, throughout the first 1,400 years of of copying, thousands of errors were transmitted into the texts that were being copied by imperfect hands that were not under inspiration when copying. Yet, the next 450 years saw a restoration of the text by textual scholars from around the world. Therefore, while many of our best literal translations today may not be inspired, they are a mirror-like reflection of the autographs by way of textual criticism. Therefore, the fallacy could be with the copyist error that has simply not been weeded out. In addition, you must keep in mind that God's Word is without error, but our interpretation and understanding of that Word is not.
Textual criticism is the study of copies of any writeen work of which the autograph (original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the origina text. It should be noted that the Bible is made up of 66 smaller books that were hand-written over a period of 1,600 years, having some 40 writers of various trades such as shepherd, king, priest, tax collector, governor, physician, copyist, fisherman, and tentmaker. Therefore, it should not surprise us that some difficulties are encountered as we casually read through the Bible. Yet, if one were to take a deeper look, one would find that these difficulties are easily explained.
Full inerrancy means that that the original writings are fully without error in all that they state, as are the words. The words were not dictated (automaton), but the intended meaning is inspired, as are the words that convey that meaning. The Author allowed the writer to use his style of writing, yet controlled the meaning to the extent of not allowing the writer to choose a wrong word, which would not convey the intended meaning. Other more libera-minded persons hold with partial inerrancy, which claims that as far as faith is concerned, this portion of God's Word is without error, but that there are historical, geographical, and scientific errors.
There are sevral different levels of inerrancy. Absolute Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is fully true and exact in every way; including not only relationships and doctrine, but also science and history. In other words, all information is completely exact. Full Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible was not written as science or historical textbook, but is phenomenological, in that it is written from the human perspective. In other words, speaking of such things as the sun rising, the four corners of the earth, or the rounding off of number approximations are all from a human perspective. Limited Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is meant only as a reflection of God's purpose and will, so the science and history is the understanding of author's day, and is limited. Thus, the Bible is susceptible to errors in these areas. Inerrancy of Purpose is the belief that it is only inerrant in the purpose of bringing its readers to a saving faith. The Bible is not about facts, but about persons and relationships, thus it is subject to error. Inspired: Not Inerrant is the belief that its authors are human and thus subject to human error. It should be noted that this author holds the position of full inerrancy.
For many today, the Bible is nothing more than a book written by men that are full of myths and legends, contradictions, and geographical, historical, and scientific errors. University professor Gerald A. Larue had this to say, "The views of the writers as expressed in the Bible reflect the ideas, beliefs, and concepts current in their own times and are limited by the extent of knowledge in those times." On the other hand, the Bible's claims are quite different.
2 Timothy 3:16 (HCSB): All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be compelte, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:21 (ESV): For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The question remains as to whether the Bible is a book written by imperfect men and full of errors, or is written by imperfect men, but inspired of God. If the Bible is just another book by imperfect man, there is no hope for humankind. If it is inspired of Godf and without error, although penned by imperfect menm we have the hop of everyting that it offers: a rich happy life now by applying counsel that lies within and the real life that is to come, everlasting life. The Bible is inspired of God and free of human error, although written by imperfect humans.
The critic's argument goes something like this: 'If God does no err and the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible should not have one single error or contradiction, yet it is full of errors and contradictions.' If the Bible is riddled with nothing but contradictions and errors as the critics would have us believe, why, out of 31,1173 verses in the Bible, should there be only 2-3 thousand Bible difficulties that are called into question, this being less than ten percent of the whole?
First, let it be said that is is every Chrisitan's obligation to get a deeper understanding of God's Word, just as the apostle Paul tod Timoth:
1 Ttimothy 4:15, 16 (ESV): Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.
Paul also told the Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 10:4 (NET): For the weapons of our warfare are not human weapons, but are made powerful by God for tearing down strongholds. We tear down arguements and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to make it obey Christ.
Paul also told the Philippians:
Philippians 1:7 (ESV): It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.
The orginally writeen books were penned by men under inspirtion. In fact, we do not have those originals, what textual scholars call autographs, but we do have thousans of copies. The copyists, however, were not inspired; therefore, as one might expect, throughout the first 1,400 years of of copying, thousands of errors were transmitted into the texts that were being copied by imperfect hands that were not under inspiration when copying. Yet, the next 450 years saw a restoration of the text by textual scholars from around the world. Therefore, while many of our best literal translations today may not be inspired, they are a mirror-like reflection of the autographs by way of textual criticism. Therefore, the fallacy could be with the copyist error that has simply not been weeded out. In addition, you must keep in mind that God's Word is without error, but our interpretation and understanding of that Word is not.
Textual criticism is the study of copies of any writeen work of which the autograph (original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the origina text. It should be noted that the Bible is made up of 66 smaller books that were hand-written over a period of 1,600 years, having some 40 writers of various trades such as shepherd, king, priest, tax collector, governor, physician, copyist, fisherman, and tentmaker. Therefore, it should not surprise us that some difficulties are encountered as we casually read through the Bible. Yet, if one were to take a deeper look, one would find that these difficulties are easily explained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)