Is the Bible the Inerrant Word of God?

[Ohio]

Is the Bible the Inerrant Word of God?
by Dane Cramer

Inerrant means “free from error.” For many evangelicals this is an important part of their belief system. They would say, “If God inspired the Bible, and God cannot commit error, then the Bible cannot contain any errors!”

For this reason, critics of the Christian faith enjoy targeting the Bible. They believe that if they can demonstrate an error within the pages of Scripture, then they have sounded the death-knell of the Christian faith. Evangelicals who hold to an error-free Bible believe this to be true as well, and are often at the helm defending the objections as if the faith is dependent upon it.

Let me suggest an alternative position …

First of all; is the Bible inerrant (without errors)? Let me begin by saying that the word “inerrant” is not found anywhere in the Bible. The word does not appear in any context – with respect to anything. What is also important to note is that the Bible actually never defines itself. By that I mean that the Bible never tells us what books should be contained within its covers. (I’m not talking about the Table of Contents; that is put there by the editors.) What I am saying is that no writer of the Bible tells us what books should be grouped together to form what we call the Bible.

Therefore, not only does the Bible lack the word inerrant in describing itself – it doesn’t even describe itself! So, my first point is to note that to call the Bible “inerrant” is to call it something that it does not call itself. I’m NOT saying that it a false construct, OR that the Bible contains errors, I’m only pointing out that the Bible does not make that claim for itself. I believe that this is an important point to make when dealing with critics of the Bible or Christianity.

An example of how this could be understood is to take a look at the views of Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina. Ehrman makes a living from being a Bible critic. He has sold many books, and is widely popular as a speaker. I’ve read some of his works and have them in my library for reference. Although he used to be a Christian, I don’t believe he makes that claim now. I believe he would claim to be an agnostic – but I can’t speak for him.

Ehrman claims that one day while reading Mark chapter 2, he discovered an error. As he struggled with the passage he eventually came to the conclusion that the passage was simply wrong. Since that day he has made many discoveries of what he considers to be of the same type. As a result, he departed the faith. Ehrman believes that since the Bible contains so many errors it simply cannot be the inspired Word of God, and is therefore unreliable.

I believe Ehrman has made two wrong conclusions based on poor suppositions: 1) He concluded that an error in the Bible meant that it cannot be God’s Word, and, 2) He concluded that the Christian faith, being based on the Bible, is not a reliable faith.

Both, I believe, are poor observations. Let’s first take a look at the supposition of # 2: The Christian faith is based on the Bible.

The New Testament portion of the Bible was not formally put together until around 397 AD, at the Council of Carthage. That means for over 350 years the Christian faith was alive and growing without a formally recognized New Testament. That’s a long time to go without a Bible! If the Christian faith depended upon the Bible to exist than the Church should not have survived those years.

Furthermore, the Church that is described in the book of Acts (the Church that almost all Christians recognize as the purest) had NO New Testament at all! Even to this day there are Christians in some parts of the world who have only seen pieces of the New Testament; yet we would not doubt their faith.

It is quite obvious that although the Bible is extremely important to Christians, it is not the basis for our faith. Note what Peter said on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:22-24, 32:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know–Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it….This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.

For Peter – as the rest of the NT writers – the basis of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Peter said nothing of the inspiration (let alone the inerrancy) of scripture! If he had made a claim that our faith was based on an error-free Bible, then Ehrman would have a point. But Peter did not; and so Ehrman does not.

No one ever based the Christian faith – or the life of the Church – on an error-free Bible! Instead, our faith – just like the faith of the early Church – is based upon the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to conclude that the Christian faith is based upon an inerrant Bible.

But what of Ehrman’s first conclusion: A Biblical error would mean that the Bible is not God’s word? Well, take a close look at the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. The four authors responsible for these books never once claim to be inspired or error-free. If anything, they only claimed to be writing the truth (see Luke 1:1-4 & John 21:24). That is an important difference.

Let me explain it this way: Let’s say you are asked to give testimony in a court regarding a vehicle accident that you witnessed. You take an oath to tell the truth and then sit down to be examined before the judge. During your testimony you give a truthful account of what you recall. However, you told the judge that the accident happened on June 19th, when in fact it happened on June 17th. Does that mean that the accident did not occur? Does it mean that the two vehicles involved never came in contact? Would it mean that everything you said must be disregarded because you mistakenly provided the wrong date?

Not at all. Any reasonable person would consider your testimony valid, unless proven otherwise unreliable. A mistake in testimony does not invalidate the testimony. Only a lie would do that. So why not apply the same reasonableness to the Scriptures? Why not give it the same benefit of the doubt that we would any historical document written by people who claim they are telling the truth?

I’ve looked at many of the “mistakes” that folks like Ehrman have claimed to have discovered. Admittedly, some of those passages are hard to work through. Most can very easily be answered without assuming an error was made. Some require a little deeper digging, and a few are still hard to explain. But even if it can be demonstrated that the writer made an error, I find no good reason to throw out his entire testimony.

I’ve been reading the Bible for over 30 years now. I have discovered problem passages, and seemingly contradicting information. I have yet to discover an error. But, even if I did, my faith would not be shaken because it rests not on an error-free Bible but on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus.

So, the next time someone criticizes your Bible, get them to look at the resurrection of Jesus – that’s where your faith should rest anyway.

[awareness]

That was great bro Ohio (left below - minus font size). Thanks much.

It deserves its own thread. Start one bro Ohio, so you get the credit I'll move it.

BTW make sure to check out his website. He's quite a character. Like Ehrman, he's not a Christian too.:
http://www.featheredprop.com/

----------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is the Bible the Inerrant Word of God?
by Dane Cramer

Inerrant means “free from error.” For many evangelicals this is an important part of their belief system. They would say, “If God inspired the Bible, and God cannot commit error, then the Bible cannot contain any errors!”

For this reason, critics of the Christian faith enjoy targeting the Bible. They believe that if they can demonstrate an error within the pages of Scripture, then they have sounded the death-knell of the Christian faith. Evangelicals who hold to an error-free Bible believe this to be true as well, and are often at the helm defending the objections as if the faith is dependent upon it.

Let me suggest an alternative position …

First of all; is the Bible inerrant (without errors)? Let me begin by saying that the word “inerrant” is not found anywhere in the Bible. The word does not appear in any context – with respect to anything. What is also important to note is that the Bible actually never defines itself. By that I mean that the Bible never tells us what books should be contained within its covers. (I’m not talking about the Table of Contents; that is put there by the editors.) What I am saying is that no writer of the Bible tells us what books should be grouped together to form what we call the Bible.

Therefore, not only does the Bible lack the word inerrant in describing itself – it doesn’t even describe itself! So, my first point is to note that to call the Bible “inerrant” is to call it something that it does not call itself. I’m NOT saying that it a false construct, OR that the Bible contains errors, I’m only pointing out that the Bible does not make that claim for itself. I believe that this is an important point to make when dealing with critics of the Bible or Christianity.

An example of how this could be understood is to take a look at the views of Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina. Ehrman makes a living from being a Bible critic. He has sold many books, and is widely popular as a speaker. I’ve read some of his works and have them in my library for reference. Although he used to be a Christian, I don’t believe he makes that claim now. I believe he would claim to be an agnostic – but I can’t speak for him.

Ehrman claims that one day while reading Mark chapter 2, he discovered an error. As he struggled with the passage he eventually came to the conclusion that the passage was simply wrong. Since that day he has made many discoveries of what he considers to be of the same type. As a result, he departed the faith. Ehrman believes that since the Bible contains so many errors it simply cannot be the inspired Word of God, and is therefore unreliable.

I believe Ehrman has made two wrong conclusions based on poor suppositions: 1) He concluded that an error in the Bible meant that it cannot be God’s Word, and, 2) He concluded that the Christian faith, being based on the Bible, is not a reliable faith.

Both, I believe, are poor observations. Let’s first take a look at the supposition of # 2: The Christian faith is based on the Bible.

The New Testament portion of the Bible was not formally put together until around 397 AD, at the Council of Carthage. That means for over 350 years the Christian faith was alive and growing without a formally recognized New Testament. That’s a long time to go without a Bible! If the Christian faith depended upon the Bible to exist than the Church should not have survived those years.

Furthermore, the Church that is described in the book of Acts (the Church that almost all Christians recognize as the purest) had NO New Testament at all! Even to this day there are Christians in some parts of the world who have only seen pieces of the New Testament; yet we would not doubt their faith.

It is quite obvious that although the Bible is extremely important to Christians, it is not the basis for our faith. Note what Peter said on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:22-24, 32:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know–Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it….This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.

For Peter – as the rest of the NT writers – the basis of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Peter said nothing of the inspiration (let alone the inerrancy) of scripture! If he had made a claim that our faith was based on an error-free Bible, then Ehrman would have a point. But Peter did not; and so Ehrman does not.

No one ever based the Christian faith – or the life of the Church – on an error-free Bible! Instead, our faith – just like the faith of the early Church – is based upon the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to conclude that the Christian faith is based upon an inerrant Bible.

But what of Ehrman’s first conclusion: A Biblical error would mean that the Bible is not God’s word? Well, take a close look at the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. The four authors responsible for these books never once claim to be inspired or error-free. If anything, they only claimed to be writing the truth (see Luke 1:1-4 & John 21:24). That is an important difference.

Let me explain it this way: Let’s say you are asked to give testimony in a court regarding a vehicle accident that you witnessed. You take an oath to tell the truth and then sit down to be examined before the judge. During your testimony you give a truthful account of what you recall. However, you told the judge that the accident happened on June 19th, when in fact it happened on June 17th. Does that mean that the accident did not occur? Does it mean that the two vehicles involved never came in contact? Would it mean that everything you said must be disregarded because you mistakenly provided the wrong date?

Not at all. Any reasonable person would consider your testimony valid, unless proven otherwise unreliable. A mistake in testimony does not invalidate the testimony. Only a lie would do that. So why not apply the same reasonableness to the Scriptures? Why not give it the same benefit of the doubt that we would any historical document written by people who claim they are telling the truth?

I’ve looked at many of the “mistakes” that folks like Ehrman have claimed to have discovered. Admittedly, some of those passages are hard to work through. Most can very easily be answered without assuming an error was made. Some require a little deeper digging, and a few are still hard to explain. But even if it can be demonstrated that the writer made an error, I find no good reason to throw out his entire testimony.

I’ve been reading the Bible for over 30 years now. I have discovered problem passages, and seemingly contradicting information. I have yet to discover an error. But, even if I did, my faith would not be shaken because it rests not on an error-free Bible but on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus.

So, the next time someone criticizes your Bible, get them to look at the resurrection of Jesus – that’s where your faith should rest anyway.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That was great bro Ohio (left below - minus font size). Thanks much.

It deserves its own thread. Start one bro Ohio, so you get the credit I'll move it.

BTW make sure to check out his website. He's quite a character. Like Ehrman, he's not a Christian too.:

You're welcome, bro. I thought I DID start a new thread.

Dane is a Christian. We've hiked some of the same trails nearby. He restored a home and made it into BnB, so without actually meeting him, we have some common interests. I bookmarked his site years ago for hiking info, but while I was surfing the other day, and came across this post on the Bible. His views are very similar to my own, and since he was familiar with Ehrman, I thought it might help to post it.

I agree with one point he made -- our faith is not based on the Bible but on the resurrected Christ. If I look at my own journey, it confirms his point. I did not begin my walk by being persuaded by "perfect" scriptures, in fact they were basically a closed book to me. I was introduced to the living Christ after I heard the gospel from a friend. That became the Rock of my salvation, not so-called biblical inerrancy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You're welcome, bro. I thought I DID start a new thread.

Where?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dane is a Christian.

Did you go to my link? The top article is "Why I’m No Longer Christian."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Where?

Did you go to my link? The top article is "Why I’m No Longer Christian."

I'm confused. Isn't the article post #1?

If you read the whole article, you will find that he merely desires to drop some of the baggage associated with the word "Christian."

So now he prefers to be known simply as a "follower of Jesus."

I can relate.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm confused. Isn't the article post #1?

My bad. Too much multitasking.

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you read the whole article, you will find that he merely desires to drop some of the baggage associated with the word "Christian."

So now he prefers to be known simply as a "follower of Jesus."

I can relate.

Me too. And yes I saw his qualifications.

But he was wrong about Ehrman. Mark 2.26 didn't throw him, except it blew his mind that Mark could make a mistake. And it did disprove inerrancy for him. It was the problem of evil that threw him.

This is what I have on Ehrman and Mark 2:26 :

For his term paper, he wrote on the problem of Jesus speaking of David’s entry into the temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” (Mark 2.26). The well-known crux is problematic for inerrancy because, according to 1 Sam 21, the time when David entered the temple was actually when Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was priest. But Ehrman was determined to work around what looked to be the plain meaning of the text, in order to salvage inerrancy. Ehrman tells his readers, Professor Story’s comment on the paper “went straight through me. He wrote, ‘Maybe Mark just made a mistake.’”21 This was a decisive moment in Ehrman’s spiritual journey. When he concluded that Mark may have erred, “the floodgates opened.”22 He began to question the historical reliability of many other biblical texts, resulting in “a seismic change” in his understanding of the Bible. “The Bible,” Ehrman notes, “began to appear to me as a very human book… This was a human book from beginning to end.”23

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But he was wrong about Ehrman.

Originally Posted by awareness

Mark 2.26 didn't throw him, except it blew his mind that Mark could make a mistake. And it did disprove inerrancy for him. It was the problem of evil that threw him.

This is what I have on Ehrman and Mark 2:26 :

For his term paper, he wrote on the problem of Jesus speaking of David’s entry into the temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” (Mark 2.26). The well-known crux is problematic for inerrancy because, according to 1 Sam 21, the time when David entered the temple was actually when Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was priest. But Ehrman was determined to work around what looked to be the plain meaning of the text, in order to salvage inerrancy. Ehrman tells his readers, Professor Story’s comment on the paper “went straight through me. He wrote, ‘Maybe Mark just made a mistake.’”21 This was a decisive moment in Ehrman’s spiritual journey. When he concluded that Mark may have erred, “the floodgates opened.”22 He began to question the historical reliability of many other biblical texts, resulting in “a seismic change” in his understanding of the Bible. “The Bible,” Ehrman notes, “began to appear to me as a very human book… This was a human book from beginning to end.”23

Based on what you quoted above, I would not say that "Dane was wrong."

Apparently Mark 2.26 caused Ehrman to lose respect for the God's word,

But the Problem of Evil caused Ehrman to lose respect for God Himself.

Both are indeed sad. Dane only addressed the former.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Based on what you quoted above, I would not say that "Dane was wrong."

Apparently Mark 2.26 caused Ehrman to lose respect for the God's word,

Or more accurately, respect for inerrancy.

Originally Posted by Ohio

But the Problem of Evil caused Ehrman to lose respect for God Himself.

Yes, because he can't accept a God that can intervene and end suffering of innocents but doesn't.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Both are indeed sad.

I don't know if the loss of inerrancy is sad. The Bible still has lots of value, even if it has mistakes in it, and is written by humans.

Is that you're problem with Ehrman? That he knows the Greek manuscripts inside and out, and knows for a fact they are errant ; that of the 5500 or so copies of manuscripts, some as small as a credit card, none of them agree with each other ; that there are more variations in the manuscripits than there are words in the NT.

And yes, like you defensively like to point out : they are just scribal textual errors.

But not all of them. Some are deliberate additions, or omissions, and scribal changes.

But all prove the fact that, it is not inerrant.

And I've already written my objections to a God that allows evil, and won't even tell us why.

But this is possible :

Farther Along
Words and Music by J.R.Baxter and W.B.Stevens
© 1937 Stamps-Baxter Music

Tempted and tried, we're oft made to wonder
Why it should be thus all the day long,
While there are others living about us,
Never molested, though in the wrong.

Refrain
Farther along we'll know all about it,
Farther along we'll understand why;
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine,
We'll understand it all by and by.

When death has come and taken our loved ones,
It leaves our home so lonely and drear,
Then do we wonder why others prosper
Living so wicked year after year.

Refrain
Farther along we'll know all about it,
Farther along we'll understand why;
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine,
We'll understand it all by and by.

Faithful til death, said our loving Master
A few more days to labor and wait,
Toils of the road will then seem as nothing
As we sweet through the beautiful gate.

Refrain
Farther along we'll know all about it,
Farther along we'll understand why;
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine,
We'll understand it all by and by.

When we see Jesus, coming in glory,
When He comes from His home in the sky,
Then we shall meet Him in that bright mansion,
We'll understand it all by and by.

Refrain
Farther along we'll know all about it,
Farther along we'll understand why;
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine,
We'll understand it all by and by.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that you're problem with Ehrman?

Regardless of how learned he is, Ehrman does not lead people to God, or to a desire to know God's word. He debates those who who have faith in God.

So what is Ehrman's goal? If we know people by their fruit, then what have we learned about Ehrman?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regardless of how learned he is, Ehrman does not lead people to God, or to a desire to know God's word. He debates those who who have faith in God.

So what is Ehrman's goal? If we know people by their fruit, then what have we learned about Ehrman?

Scholars aren't typically evangelists. And we can't know how many Ehrman has brought to the Lord, since he was born again in his teens. He was a Baptist preacher at Princeton ... and all the Baptist churches I've been a part of, since diapers, have an altar call every Sunday.

And btw, at least your boy Dane has Ehrman on his shelf for reference. Why do you think he does that?

[zeek]

So Dane Cramer claims to be a follower of Jesus not a Christian. I would claim to be the same but look =>

Luke 14:33 New King James Version (NKJV)
33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

Has Cramer really forsaken all? Have I?

I'm at a loss to understand why Ohio posted this, while at the same time, I appreciate it. It seems like a massive retreat from the claim of inerrancy. I understand. Inerrancy is patently false on its face.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Mark 2.26 didn't throw him, except it blew his mind that Mark could make a mistake.

Perhaps the mistake is translating "in the days of Abiathar the High Priest" as "When Abiathar was high priest".

The day Abiathar's father gave the shewbread to David was a very big day in the life of Abiathar, the high priest. Because of that day all of the other priests were killed and only he escaped, fleeing to David and becoming High Priest during David and into Solomon's reign.

Isn't this Jesus point about the disciples? They aren't the high Priest, Jesus is, but this is the day they got the revelation that "the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." That is a major day in the life of the Apostle's who are going to make a transition from the OT to the NT. That transition takes place later after Jesus dies on the cross, but that doesn't mean this wasn't a big day for them, a big revelation.

What David did on that day was a big revelation for Abiathar, and now what Jesus, the greater David is doing is also a big revelation for the Apostles. The context of Jesus speaking is about his disciples, and although they are not yet Apostles of the Most High God, they will be shortly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Perhaps the mistake is translating "in the days of Abiathar the High Priest" as "When Abiathar was high priest".

The day Abiathar's father gave the shewbread to David was a very big day in the life of Abiathar, the high priest. Because of that day all of the other priests were killed and only he escaped, fleeing to David and becoming High Priest during David and into Solomon's reign.

Isn't this Jesus point about the disciples? They aren't the high Priest, Jesus is, but this is the day they got the revelation that "the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." That is a major day in the life of the Apostle's who are going to make a transition from the OT to the NT. That transition takes place later after Jesus dies on the cross, but that doesn't mean this wasn't a big day for them, a big revelation.

What David did on that day was a big revelation for Abiathar, and now what Jesus, the greater David is doing is also a big revelation for the Apostles. The context of Jesus speaking is about his disciples, and although they are not yet Apostles of the Most High God, they will be shortly.

"A similar confusion occurs in Gospel of Mark 2:26:[2][3] in reporting Jesus' words, the evangelist used the name Abiathar when we might expect to see Jesus mention his father Ahimelech.[3] Suggestions made to resolve the difficulty — e.g. that father and son each bore the same double name, or that Abiathar officiated during his father's lifetime and in his father's stead—have been supported by great names, but have not been fully accepted.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiathar

Yours too is not fully accepted. Are you twisting into a pretzel to support inerrancy?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

"A similar confusion occurs in Gospel of Mark 2:26:[2][3] in reporting Jesus' words, the evangelist used the name Abiathar when we might expect to see Jesus mention his father Ahimelech.[3] Suggestions made to resolve the difficulty — e.g. that father and son each bore the same double name, or that Abiathar officiated during his father's lifetime and in his father's stead—have been supported by great names, but have not been fully accepted.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiathar

Yours too is not fully accepted. Are you twisting into a pretzel to support inerrancy?

My understanding is that the translations is not "when" but rather "the days of Abiathar". Now it seems incredibly myopic of us to think that has to refer to when Abiathar was the high priest. For example when we interview people who want to be teachers we commonly ask them to tell us about the day they decided they want to become a teacher. Another typical question is to tell us about a day in which they overcame obstacles in the past. The NYC DOE even advises people applying to teach to prepare for these questions. These are big days in the life of teachers, even though they don't occur when they were teachers.

Therefore, rather than have myself twist into a pretzel, why don't you tell me how Jesus could have phrased this more elegantly if his point was "this is a big day for my disciples who are being trained to be apostles and change the age, just as the day David ate the shewbread was a big day for Abiathar the high priest. My disciples are not apostles right now, and Abiathar was not the high priest at that time either, but just as he got the vision that "The son of man is lord of the Sabbath" so also my disciples are also getting that vision. A controlling vision for their ministry as apostles."

That seems like a reasonable understanding of "the days of Abiathar, the high priest"

[Boxjobox]

The question overall is not if the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but exactly what is God trying to convey to us through the Good Book. I think all will admit that one can, using certain sets of scripture, "make" the Bible say whatever they want. Hence, we have, 7th Day Adventist, Pentecostals, Presbyterian, Church of Rome, Baptists, Local Churches, and the list goes on, and on and on. Women can't speak in church, women are elders, baptize immersion, sprinkle, symbolic, removes sins, spiritual- no water needed, dunk them in the bathtub! The great speakers and writers are the ones that can put together some kind of cohesive message that enough people will believe and follow. Usually some charismatic person that seems to be a cut above the norm so that followers will follow because they don't want to miss out. So different groups form, who are individuals who buy into most of the leader's doctrine, and all the groups claim the Bible is their foundation. Eventually, some in group, split off and form a sub group with a different twist on the original doctrine. One thing we know is that a lot of money flows to keep the whole thing well oiled, and a lot of individuals like the prestige of being in charge.

[Boxjobox]

Here is one I wonder about: “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,”
**Ephesians‬ *3:1-6‬ *NKJV‬‬

So Paul is saying that the mystery was revealed to His holy apostles and prophets that the Gentiles should be fellow heir....yet when I read through the NT it seems like there is not a cohesive understanding of this among so many, and actually is a large stumbling block, even among apostles and other spokespersons.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My understanding is that the translations is not "when" but rather "the days of Abiathar". Now it seems incredibly myopic of us to think that has to refer to when Abiathar was the high priest. For example when we interview people who want to be teachers we commonly ask them to tell us about the day they decided they want to become a teacher. Another typical question is to tell us about a day in which they overcame obstacles in the past. The NYC DOE even advises people applying to teach to prepare for these questions. These are big days in the life of teachers, even though they don't occur when they were teachers.

Therefore, rather than have myself twist into a pretzel, why don't you tell me how Jesus could have phrased this more elegantly if his point was "this is a big day for my disciples who are being trained to be apostles and change the age, just as the day David ate the shewbread was a big day for Abiathar the high priest. My disciples are not apostles right now, and Abiathar was not the high priest at that time either, but just as he got the vision that "The son of man is lord of the Sabbath" so also my disciples are also getting that vision. A controlling vision for their ministry as apostles."

That seems like a reasonable understanding of "the days of Abiathar, the high priest"

Are you saying the problem with Mark 2:26 is a phrasing problem? That Jesus is the problem? Not that the author of Mark made a mistake?

Why is it so hard to admit that Mark made a boo-boo? He was just a flawed man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you saying the problem with Mark 2:26 is a phrasing problem? That Jesus is the problem? Not that the author of Mark made a mistake?

Why is it so hard to admit that Mark made a boo-boo? He was just a flawed man.

Even if he got his OT quote wrong, does that make him a FLAWED MAN?

Your hatred of Bible writers is showing.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Are you saying the problem with Mark 2:26 is a phrasing problem? That Jesus is the problem? Not that the author of Mark made a mistake?

No, not saying that.

Originally Posted by awareness

Why is it so hard to admit that Mark made a boo-boo? He was just a flawed man.

I find it much easier to say that the Bible commentators or translators made a mistake.

I see you have modified your other post, at first I thought I had completely misunderstood this thread that your argument was "Are Bible commentators inerrant". I would surely agree with you that they aren't.

In my experience I have seen many places in the Bible where I thought it made a mistake only to later realize my own understanding was the error. Once burned twice shy, don't want to make that mistake again. If I trust the Bible and where I don't understand I just acknowledge I don't understand then I am covered. If God did make a mistake it is on him. But suppose I assume God made a mistake and then it turns out I am the one who did. Then I look like a jackass, arrogant fool. The Lord will be sitting on his throne laughing in derision at me (Ps 2).

So far I have only seen one place in the Bible where I really cannot understand, even tempted to say it was a mistake. However I saw a scientific journal article this week that might prove once again that I was in error, so I am happy I had the patience to look more carefully rather than jump to a rash conclusion.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even if he got his OT quote wrong, does that make him a FLAWED MAN?

Your hatred of Bible writers is showing.

The quote in Mark should say "the days of Abiathar, the high priest" not "when Abiathar was high priest".

If it was talking about something that happened when Abiathar was high priest it wouldn't say "the days of Abiathar" but rather "the days of the high priest, Abiathar".

To me this is just a bad translation. Someone assuming that A = B, when it doesn't at all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The quote in Mark should say "the days of Abiathar, the high priest" not "when Abiathar was high priest".

If it was talking about something that happened when Abiathar was high priest it wouldn't say "the days of Abiathar" but rather "the days of the high priest, Abiathar".

To me this is just a bad translation. Someone assuming that A = B, when it doesn't at all.

I think Mark did a great job writing his Gospel especially since awareness has been trying to convince all the readers that the apostles were all "illiterate and uneducated."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think Mark did a great job writing his Gospel especially since awareness has been trying to convince all the readers that the apostles were all "illiterate and uneducated."

I don't know about all of them, but Peter and John, yeah. I'm just going by the very Word of God :

Act 4:13 And seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and comprehending that they are illiterate men,

Which makes sense if they were just fishermen on the sea of Galilee ... they weren't Greek scholars. They didn't even speak Greek. Like Jesus they spoke Aramaic. Which maybe is why, since the NT is written in Greek, Jesus never wrote a book. But we may never know why he didn't write a book. The NT never says that Jesus could even write. All we have is :

Joh 8:6* This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.*

What he wrote is everybody's guess. It's not in red, so it's unlikely to be words.

[Boxjobox]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about all of them, but Peter and John, yeah. I'm just going by the very Word of God :

Act 4:13 And seeing the freedom of speech of Peter and John, and comprehending that they are illiterate men,

Which makes sense if they were just fishermen on the sea of Galilee ... they weren't Greek scholars. They didn't even speak Greek. Like Jesus they spoke Aramaic. Which maybe is why, since the NT is written in Greek, Jesus never wrote a book. But we may never know why he didn't write a book. The NT never says that Jesus could even write. All we have is :

Joh 8:6* This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.*

What he wrote is everybody's guess. It's not in red, so it's unlikely to be words.

From my friend Luke's research:
“So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.”
**Luke‬ *4:16-18, 20‬ *NKJV‬‬

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Even if he got his OT quote wrong, does that make him a FLAWED MAN?

Your hatred of Bible writers is showing.

"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" except the writers of the books of the Bible. They weren't born with original sin.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" except the writers of the books of the Bible. They weren't born with original sin.

Whereas dogmatic inerrancy denies the fallibility of the Biblical authors, Paul acknowledges it; for example, here:

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Whereas dogmatic inerrancy denies the fallibility of the Biblical authors, Paul acknowledges it; for example, here:

My answer is a bumper sticker :