Hi Folks,
When Warfield tries do undo the damage this is what he writes.
There will undoubtedly be found upon the surface many apparent affirmations presumably inconsistent with the present teachings of science, with facts of history, or with other statements of the sacred books themselves. Such apparent inconsistencies and collisions with other sources of information are to be expected in imperfect copies of ancient writings ; from the fact that the original reading may have been lost, or that we may fail to realise the point of view of the author, or that we are destitute of the circumstantial knowledge which would fill up and harmonise the record.
So he says that there are all these errors. One reason is "copyist error" and we do not know the actual text. The second is similar, lost originals, or lost somethings.
The third, however, is the "point of view of the author". Thus Mark and Luke (and Ezra and Isaiah and other Bible authors) may have been limited and mistaken on geography within the sacred writings, and that is why they put (in the modern versions) the swine more-than-marathon-distance from the Sea of Galilee. Or they may have heard the testimony of some witnesses wrong. Some things may have been 'lost in translation'. They may not have known geology or philosophy or natural science or various other "truths". All these could then be errors IN the autographs.
So then Warfield limits the claim to :
" will leave unmodified the ancient faith of the Church. In all their real affirmations these books are without error."
No longer does even the original non-extant ethereal "history, natural history, ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science, and philosophy" have to be right, simply the faith (real) affirmations. Warfield really wrote in a very crafty fashion. He makes the potential errors by Luke and John and Peter and Paul clear. It is easier to see with the fluff removed.
"... the Scriptures ... bear everywhere indelible traces of human error. The record itself furnishes evidence that the writers were in large measure dependent for their knowledge upon sources and methods in themselves fallible ; and that their personal knowledge and judgments were in many matters hesitating and defective, or even wrong.
This leaves a Mack Truck space of room to drive through many types and sizes and quantities of errors. Maybe the authors misperceived creation and the flood and geology and archeology and philosophy or the dates of kings or the birthtime of the Lord Jesus or a thousand other things that they then wrote into scripture.
Now watch how Warfield twists right back to faith affirmation only. First he totally misrepresents the Reformation Confessions and the historic views, which did not have the original autograph unknown text Warfield caveat. However for these posts we are basically giving the fundamental problem a pass and showing that that he has a huge errancy allowance even within the "original autographs".
Warfield clearly limits accuracy only to facts or principles intended to be affirmed.. If faith was to be affirmed, but not science or geology, then the geology and science and philosophy can be wrong. Rarely have I seen craftier writing.
"Nevertheless, the historical faith of the Church has always been, that all the affirmations of Scripture of all kinds, whether of spiritual doctrine or duty, or of physical or historical fact, or of psychological or philosophical principle, are without any error, when the ipsissima verba of the original autographs are ascertained and interpreted in their natural and intended sense.
Ahh.. very clever. First a real inerrancy-sounding statement ascribed to the historical church. However then it can be limited to only matching the natural and intended sense of scripture, which is not to claim that geography and philosophy and all of those pesky realms are necessarily truthful, accurate, logical. After all the authors are allowed to make all sorts of mistakes.
There is a vast difference between exactness of statement, which includes an exhaustive rendering of details, an absolute literalness, which the Scriptures never profess, and accuracy, on the other hand, which secures a correct statement of facts or principles intended to be affirmed. It is this accuracy, and this alone, as distinct from exactness, which the Church doctrine maintains of every affirmation in the original text of Scripture without exception. Every statement accurately corresponds to truth just as far forth as affirmed. "
Caveat emptor.
Shalom,
Steven
