Inerrancy of Scripture

[Caledvwlch]

This one has been discussed in (painful) detail here on TOL before but I believe the threads have been "pruned" to free up server space.

I'm sure it has been discussed... was a reasonable answer ever given?

 

[Zakath]

I'm sure it has been discussed... was a reasonable answer ever given?

As I was one of the major discussants, I can say that I never thought any of the explanations provided were particularly convincing, or even held up under scrutiny.

I find that most discussions of inerrancy end up with either a round of name-calling or a bit of pious sniffing and a comment like, "The Holy Spirit has to make it clear to you. Since you're a non-believer you obviously don't understand."

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Begging the question, of course, of whether the gospel attributed to Matthew was actually written in Hebrew or Aramaic and nohave beent originally written in Greek; in which case the point does not stand.

But the name of the town--as it was called by native Nazarenes--would have been known by Matthew.

 

[servent101]

Zakath

I find that most discussions of inerrancy end up with either a round of name-calling or a bit of pious sniffing and a comment like, "The Holy Spirit has to make it clear to you. Since you're a non-believer you obviously don't understand."

I find that the Bible is as inerrant as the Book needs to be, to the people to whom it was Written - in time, place and circumstances, the development of the people's psychie being the primary catalyst in understanding what is Written... hope I have never come across as piously sniffy , or name-calling, or saying your a non-believer.

As far as I think, from what I have seen, you are a Child of God Zakath, you try to overcome evil with Good, you seem to try to keep the peace and all in all, seem very moral - so to me, your on the path that leads to eternal life, even if for a short time, what you perceive as the means to deduce the concept of God, is null in void, this is just a few short years in what is an eternity, and eventually you will find the "means to construct an opinion" that is satisfactory to your intelligence (in my opinion anyways) concerning the Nature of God, or as you put it, the Deity.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Caledvwlch]

As I was one of the major discussants, I can say that I never thought any of the explanations provided were particularly convincing, or even held up under scrutiny.

I find that most discussions of inerrancy end up with either a round of name-calling or a bit of pious sniffing and a comment like, "The Holy Spirit has to make it clear to you. Since you're a non-believer you obviously don't understand."

I don't mean to be a pain in your butt Zakath, but I'm honestly curious. How does one defend the obvious differences?

 

[Zakath]

But the name of the town--as it was called by native Nazarenes--would have been known by Matthew.

But no scripture has ever been found in either Masoretic or Septuagint versions to serve as the basis for the author of Matthew's gospel's "citation".

Secondly, to my admittedly limited knowledge, not a single published translation of the NT cites your verses as support for Matthew's spurious quote. It is not unreasonable that, after 1500 years of translating, someone on a translation team would have entered such an explanation as a footnote at least. The fact that no such reference exists leads me to believe that it is not quite as much of an "open and shut case" as you might like to believe.

 

[Zakath]

I don't mean to be a pain in your butt Zakath, but I'm honestly curious. How does one defend the obvious differences?

Well, I certainly don't... :chuckle:

Dozens of apologetic volumes, totalling many times the length of the entire bible, have been written to attempt reconcile the errors in the allegedly infallible Judeo-Christian scriptures. I'd suggest you might avail yourself of one. I could suggest Gleason Archer's An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties which runs close to 500 pages. Many skeptics and freethinkers who are on the fence about the validity of the Christian Bible have crossed the line into skepticism after reading such collections of "how it could have been" tactics.

Alternately you could check out the Web. I might suggest The Secular Web and do a search for "genealogy".

 

[Caledvwlch]

Well, I certainly don't... :chuckle:

Dozens of apologetic volumes, totalling many times the length of the entire bible, have been written to attempt reconcile the errors in the allegedly infallible Judeo-Christian scriptures. I'd suggest you might avail yourself of one. I could suggest Gleason Archer's An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties which runs close to 500 pages. Many skeptics and freethinkers who are on the fence about the validity of the Christian Bible have crossed the line into skepticism after reading such collections of "how it could have been" tactics.

Alternately you could check out the Web. I might suggest The Secular Web and do a search for "genealogy".

Thank you. Just what I was looking for.

 

[Granite]

The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. The consonants in the word "branch" are identical to those in "Nazarene" (the Hebrew Scriptures were originally written without consonants). In Matthew's culture, the similarity would be considered meaningful.

No doubt this won't pass muster in Granite's Rules Of Authentic Prophecy, but we'll get over it just fine.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Matthew was pointing to a very specific town (which had a lousy reputation). He didn't say that the messiah would be called "the branch." Try again.

 

[Granite]

But the name of the town--as it was called by native Nazarenes--would have been known by Matthew.

Although there is doubt if it even existed in Jesus' day...and it certainly did not exist when the "prophecy" was written, if written at all.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

But no scripture has ever been found in either Masoretic or Septuagint versions to serve as the basis for the author of Matthew's gospel's "citation".

Secondly, to my admittedly limited knowledge, not a single published translation of the NT cites your verses as support for Matthew's spurious quote. It is not unreasonable that, after 1500 years of translating, someone on a translation team would have entered such an explanation as a footnote at least. The fact that no such reference exists leads me to believe that it is not quite as much of an "open and shut case" as you might like to believe.

The citation is an allusion to the word "branch" in the scriptures I posted.

Jerome (340-420 AD): "We may explain that it is found in Isaiah rendered to the strict letter of the Hebrew. 'There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall grow out of His roots.'
"

 

[Granite]

I have to ask why translators the world and ages over have insisted on using "Nazarene" here when "branch" would suffice and be a lot clearer (not to say more accurate).

Hmmmm...

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Matthew was pointing to a very specific town (which had a lousy reputation). He didn't say that the messiah would be called "the branch." Try again.

"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I have to ask why translators the world and ages over have insisted on using "Nazarene" here when "branch" would suffice and be a lot clearer (not to say more accurate).

Hmmmm...

They wanted to hear you play the kazoo.

 

[Caledvwlch]

"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.

So in other words, they had the choice between "Nazarene" and "branch" and they picked "Nazarene" because it backed up their dogma.

 

[Granite]

"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.

This is the problem: the Bible means what it says until it doesn't.

Again, for the sake of narrative clarity, these guys could have saved the trouble and just called him "the branch."

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh013.htm

Interesting discussion--Leithart himself admits that it's not possible to know which prophecy (if any existed) Matthew specifically had in mind.

 

[Zakath]

"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.

Interesting. It would have been more convincing if Jesus actually was from Nazareth. Doesn't Matthew also say he wasn't from Nazareth, but Bethlehem?

IMO the Nazareth reference seems to be an attempt to reconcile the problem that Jesus' alleged birthplace was not his "city of origin", but someplace else.

He was born in Bethlehem and should have been referred to as a "Bethlehemite", but the Jesus of the gospels was commonly referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth".

Ultimately, if he's not from Nazareth, then exegeting that way has little relevance...

It also sound's like we've got a "dueling prophecies" issue here... (which is one possible reason behind the historically undocumented "slaughter of the innocents...flight to Egypt...return to Nazareth scenario).

 

[Granite]

Considering that the context of the passage is Jesus' birthtown and not his messianic characteristics it would SEEM, at first glance, that the "prophecy" referred to his town of birth/residence/origin.

Of course, as Zakath points out, considering Nazareth was NOT his birthtown, this might be a matter of confused authorship and a very moot point.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

I honestly don't see what the problem is here. Born in Bethlehem; from Nazareth.

I was born in Maine and the family moved to Virginia when I was five. I lived there until I was 21, and I think of Virginia as the place where I'm from.

Back to Nazarene/branch. He's called the Nazarene because that's where he's from (in the sense given above). Nazarene and branch have the same consonantal skeleton and Matthew is engaging in a kind of reverent wordplay. I'm baffled by the quibbles this is getting. I'm done with this topic.

 

[logos_x]

Logic comes in two flavors

Logic comes in two flavors

A Practical Introduction to Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/logic_comes_in_two_flavors.htm