Tilling less than thrilling

I see that Chris Tilling has graced our combox. As such, now might be as good a time as any to review his attack on the inerrancy of Scripture:

***QUOTE***

My friend Jim West brought this to my attention earlier today, and though I am an evangelical myself I believe this is a deeply disturbing development.

I’ve just ranted my full frustration about this to my dear wife so I won’t repeat all that here. But while it is crucial to formulate our doctrine of Scripture so that it encourages respect for the texts and expectancy that God speaks through them, lets not pretend the texts are something they are not (and this business about perfect original manuscripts is a self defeating position, as I discussed here).

This is a step back, guys, and will only exclude those who are committed to church, Scripture and the gospel, those who are a vital, God fearing, creative and life-giving part of your own tradition. In truth this breaks my heart and is, in my opinion, a sign of immaturity.

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/11/ets-adopt-chicago-statement-on.html

***END-QUOTE***

i) His reaction is less than self-explanatory. To my knowledge, the ETS was always committed to inerrancy—at least on paper. As I recall, Roger Nicole was responsible for the wording of the original statement of faith committing the ETS to inerrancy. So how does this represent a “step back”? Rather, it represents an attempt to hold their original ground.

Over time, evangelicalism has liberalized since the founding of ETS. So that is why the ETS has adopted the Chicago Statement. To my knowledge, many of the architects of the Chicago Statement were also charter members of the ETS. So how is it a step back when the ETS adopts a document which was formulated by the same people who founded the ETS in the first place?

Is Tiling even aware of the history of the ETS? If he is, it doesn’t show.

ii) The ETS is a voluntary association. So why does it “break his heart” when the members of the ETS reserve the right to define the terms of membership?

If some of the liberal members can’t accept that, they are free to form a more liberal organization.

iii) As to excluding those who are committed to Scripture, &c. what’s the correlation between commitment to Scripture and a lower view of Scripture? Wouldn’t a lower view of Scripture correlate with a lower commitment to Scripture?

iv) Finally, let’s drop the Bible-honoring pose for a moment. What he really means is that he finds certain parts of the Bible unbelievable. And so he wants to see the ETS allow a lower view of Scripture to accommodate the disbelief of theological liberals like himself.

Continuing:

“It needs to be stated that the bible says nothing about itself! The bible is a collection of materials of greater or lesser accuracy to the original, and weren’t officially collected together as one till hundreds of years after they were written.”

i) Isn’t this a pretty hyperbolic claim? The Bible says nothing about itself? There are many self-referential statements in Scripture.

Does Tiling simply mean there’s no collective self-referential statement in Scripture? If so, so what? Isn’t that a rather simpleminded approach? What about the pervasive phenomenon of intertextuality in Scripture?

ii) Likewise, it’s a truism to say that you can’t have a complete canon of Scripture before the Scriptures were completed. But this doesn’t mean that the Scriptures were all written first, and then collected after the fact. Rather, composition and canonization are roughly parallel phenomena.

“Thus, when it states in Rev 22:18 ‘I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book’, it is, of course, a reference only to Revelation, as there was no bible for it to correspond to. This is obvious, but a point amazingly overlooked by many defenders of inerrancy.”

It’s true that Rev 22:18 has reference to the Apocalypse. But it’s hardly true to say “there was no bible for it to correspond to.” What about the OT canon? What about the Pentateuch? For example, the Apocalypse is a tapestry of OT allusions.

“Only by taking verses here and there and by putting them through a deductively logical wringer can one conclude a doctrine of inerrancy.”

What’s wrong with taking verses here and there? Isn’t that what Paul does in Romans? Isn’t that what the author of Hebrews is doing?

What’s wrong with deductive logic? Is Jesus illogical? Is Paul illogical? Is the author of Hebrews illogical?

Perhaps a better question would be—is Tilling illogical? However, I’m too tactful to answer that question.

“This step of deductive logic is not a scriptural leap, but rather an inductive reading of the many clear contradictions and mistakes in the bible mean we must avoid such a logical wringer. One ceases to be biblical if one states that inspiration means inerrancy… However, after all of this, there is a far stronger reason for rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy, far stronger: The witness of the bible itself, read inductively. I suggest that it can be conclusively proved that scripture is not inerrant, and the bible’s own witness to this is decisive!”

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/03/inerrancy-pt2.html

This is a good illustration of Tilling’s alarming lack of intellectual sophistication. He thinks that by citing certain “phenomena” in Scripture which, in his estimation, are erroneous, this somehow qualifies as an “inductive” disproof of inerrancy.

But this is not inductive. To the contrary, this is a classically extrinsic argument against the inerrancy of Scripture.

It is inductive in the glib sense that he is gleaning his examples from Scripture. But he is measuring those examples by an extrascriptural yardstick.

A truly inductive disproof of inerrancy would involve him in showing, from within the viewpoint of Scripture itself, that prophets, apostles, and other suchlike are fallible spokemen or penmen. Do the Bible writers view themselves as fallible? Do inspired speakers embedded in the narratives of Scripture view themselves as fallible? That is the kind of evidence which Tilling would need to educe to mount an inductive disproof of Biblical inerrancy.

But as we shall see, Tilling never does that. He never cites any Scriptural admission of its own errancy. What he does, instead, is to ransack Scripture for representative examples of what he, from his exoteric standpoint, regards as erroneous or contradictory claims. But that is not at all the same thing as citing Scriptural testimony to the errancy of Scripture.

It’s a pity that a post-graduate student is still so lacking in critical detachment that he is unable to distinguish the self-understanding of Scripture from his own extraneous value-judgments.

So even if, for the sake of argument, we were to concede that his examples of Biblical errors were, indeed, Biblical errors, there would be nothing genuinely inductive about this procedure. For even though Scripture is being used to supply the examples, it is not allowed to set the standard by which these examples are deemed to be erroneous.

Hence, Tilling is guilty of bifurcating the witness of Scripture. He is judging Scripture by Scriptural examples without judging Scripture by Scriptural standards. He has driven a wedge between Scripture as a source and Scripture as a standard. The Bible doesn’t bear witness to its own errancy. Rather, he is trolling for Biblical examples which, to his way of thinking, are erroneous. But that is by no means the same thing as a Scriptural self-witness to the errancy of Scripture.

Thus, his putatively “inductive” disproof of inerrancy is, in reality, a synthetic procedure which quarries Scripture for examples that are adjudged to be erroneous by extrascriptural criteria. You have to wonder how a student of the Bible could get so far in his studies with so little capacity to distinguish the viewpoint of a (modern liberal) reader from the viewpoint of the (Biblical) author.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

There are scientific errors.
a) An example: Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 both describe the hare as a ruminant. However, as Law rightly states: ‘This is quite simply wrong and no exegetical ingenuity can make it right’

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/03/inerrancy-pt-3.html

***END-QUOTE***

Three problems:

i) Scripture isn’t attempting to classify animals according to a scientific taxonomy. Rather, the kosher laws distinguish between clean and unclean animals. For practical purposes, one describes clean and unclean animals by superficially discernible characteristics in order to identify and differentiate clean from unclean animals.

ii) Let’s also keep in mind that the precise identification of the animals is uncertain at this distance from the events.

iii) Notice the well-poisoning move: “no exegetical ingenuity can make it right.”

So Tilling reserves the right to attack the accuracy of Scripture, but preemptively denies the right of a Bible-believing Christian to defend the accuracy of Scripture by his prejudicial use of language about “exegetical ingenuity.”

He’s trying to exempt his own position from rational scrutiny. Anyone who challenges his interpretation can be dismissed out of hand for indulging in “exegetical ingenuity” or, as he will later say, “silly explanations.”

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

b) Biblical cosmology asserts a flat earth, something Creationists will do their best to ignore. While your in Genesis, compare the creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2 and think about the order of creation, i.e. when humans came along in relation to the rest of creation.

***END-QUOTE***

Actually, what we have in Scripture are some architectural metaphors that foreshadow the tabernacle. The creation account depicts the universe in terms of sacred time and sacred space. Eden is a microcosm of the macrocosmic temple. That sort of thing.

This has been documented by many scholars (e.g. Balentine, Beale, Kline, Levenson, Walton, Wenham). Once again, how does a post-graduate student get this far in his studies while remaining so abysmally ignorant about the Biblical iconography of creation?

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

There are genealogical list errors.
a) Even many conservative scholars would admit this even in relation to Matt 1:1-17. Btw, in 1:17, it states: ‘from Abraham to David fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian exile fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian exile to the Christ fourteen generations.’ Sit yourself down and actually count how many generations there are listed in the preceding verses and see if the editor/author was any good at maths.

***END-QUOTE***

But a modern reader isn’t suppose to just sit down and do his own computation.” The whole point of the grammatico-historical method is put some distance between the contemporary reader’s cultural frame of reference and the original author’s frame of reference. Once more, how do you get to be a postgraduate student at Tübingen and not know the first rule of grammatico-historical exegesis? How would the implied reader hear the text? That’s the question.

As both Blomberg (53) and Nolland (86) explain in their respective commentaries, Matthew is numbering the genealogies according to the accepted conventions of the day.

***QUOTE***

There are copyist errors. Hundreds of them. And the copyists and editors saw fit to change bits of the text here and their to suit their own agendas.

***END-QUOTE***

How do scribal errors disprove the inerrancy of what a prophet or apostle spoke or wrote? This is a glaring non-sequitur.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

There are historical errors. Just a few random examples:


a) How did Judas die? Compare, closely, the accounts in Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18-19. The differences are certainly not the result of a mere copyist error.

***END-QUOTE***

A couple of issues:

i) Can Tilling cite any inerrantist scholar of distinction who attributes these differences to scribal error? Of is this a straw man argument on his part?

ii) The unspoken assumption here is that he can’t imagine how these two accounts would go together. He has a mental picture of each account, and in his mind’s eye, then don’t mesh.

Speaking for myself, it’s pretty easy to imagine how what began with Mt 27:3-8 would end with Acts 1:18. Exposed corpses are devoured by scavengers. Indeed, that was sometimes done deliberately to desecrate the corpse of one’s enemy.

It’s quite easy to imagine a pack of feral dogs pulling down the corpse of Judas and feasting on his remains (1 Kg 14:11; 16:4; 21:19,23; 2 Kg 9:36). This exercise would be expedited by the softening up process of putrefaction under the hot sunshine. In fact, that would be inevitable as long as the corpse lay within reach of canine scavengers.

***QUOTE***

b) Did Paul’s companions hear the voice during the Damascus road experience? Acts 9:7 ‘The men who were travelling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one’. Acts 22:9 ‘Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me’.

***END-QUOTE***

“The traditional understanding is that with the genitive akouo means to hear but not to understand, while with the accusative akouo means to hear and understand; or that the genitive is concerned with the form of speech but the accusative with the content. It is also possible that the genitive inn Acts 9:7 refers to Paul’s voice,” S. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield 1995), 97.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

c) What colour robe was Jesus forced to wear? Compare Matt 27:28-29 with John 19:2-3.

***END-QUOTE***

This is a good example of someone who operates with a wooden version of inerrancy. The finer shades of overlapping spectra are inherently imprecise, and which synonym an author chooses to use is a judgment call.

The irony is that Tilling makes fun of Lindsell’s wooden precisionism, but he himself operates with the very same stiff literality when attacking the veracity of Scripture.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

d) How many Syrians did David slay? Compare 2 Sam 10:18 and 1 Chron 19:18.

***END-QUOTE***

Three possibilities:

i) This may be a case of scribal error. Numbers are prone to transcriptional error.

ii) It may be a case of how to render the Hebrew, as Youngblood points out in his commentary. Cf. EBC 3:925.

iii) Or it may be a case in which either or both writers are using numerology. Notice that both occurrences revolve around the number “seven.” As one commentator has noted in a different, but related context, “there appear to be literary conventions governing the use of names and numbers,” I. Provan, 1 & 2 Kings (Hendrickson 1995), 7.

“It’s interesting to find the figure ‘seven thousand’ occurring yet again, since that is the number of ‘the remnant’ in 1 Kgs 19:18 (cf. Also the additional note to 1 Kgs 20:15), ibid. 281n56.”

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

e) For more, do a bible study on these questions like: Who is the father of Joseph?

***END-QUOTE***

One should make allowance for the fact that in a tribal society with such customs as endogamy and levirate marriage, kinship and descent were construed more broadly than in our own culture. Once needs to be sensitive to the cultural conventions of that time and place.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

Who was at the Empty Tomb?

***END-QUOTE***

Tilling’s unspoken assumption seems to be that unless each gospel author names the same people in the same chronological order, we have a material contradiction on our hands. But why should we assume that?

Does each gospel author presume to name everyone who frequented the tomb? Does each gospel author presume to present a strictly chronological account?

Moreover, why assume that each individual or party only visited the empty tomb just once on Easter? No return visits? Wouldn’t you go back more than once?

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

How many times did the ‘cock crow’ (Peter’s denial of Jesus)? Etc.

***END-QUOTE***

Once again, he seems to be assuming that the gospels are factually erroneous unless each gospel reproduces every extraneous detail. But as R. T. France points out, “Matthew’s omission (together with Luke and John) of Mark’s ‘twice’ with reference to the cock-crow is typical of his tendency to leave out unnecessary narrative details,” Matthew (IVP 1987), 371.

“To make an issue of historical harmonization out of this obvious simplification is surely pedantic,” ibid. 371-72n3.

“Why then does Mark have the cock crowing twice, and later make a point of mentioning the crowings in his narrative at vv.72? The simplest explanation, particularly for those who take seriously the tradition that Peter was himself the source of much of the material in Mark’s gospel, is that Mark preserves the account in its fullest and most detailed form (as Peter himself would have remembered and repeated it), but that the double cockcrow was omitted as an unnecessary additional detail in the other accounts. There is after all nothing improbable in a repeated crowing: even a single cock would be unlikely to crow once and then stop, and if there were others in the neighourhood they would take it up,” The Gospel of Mark (Eerdmans 2002), 579.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

There are factual errors
a) One example: Matt 27:9-10 cites a passage that the author/editor claims to have come from Jeremiah. But where did it really come from? Zech 11:12-13.

***END-QUOTE***

What we have here is a composite quote. As Nolland explains, “Some interpreters are content to consider ‘Jeremiah” in Mt 27:9 a simple mistake, indicating limited access to scriptural texts on the part of Matthew. But the series of links with texts in Jeremiah which we have been exploring count strongly against this view. Matthew has other quotations that merge texts: Mt 2:5-6 merges Mi 5:1 with 2 Sa 5:2; Mt 21:4-5 merges Is 62:11 and Zc 9:9,” The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2005), 1156n322.

And Keener also notes that “given his ability to retranslate the entire Hebrew text based on revocalization…it is unlikely that Matthew simply got his attribution wrong,” A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 1999), 657n140.

The irony of Tilling is that while he mocks the literality of Lindsell, and tell us that he’s left his “fundy” upbringing far behind, Tilling continues to operate with a pop fundamentalist hermeneutic. He reads the Bible the same way that Lindsell or LaHaye, and then judges it to be errant on the basis of his hereditary, pop fundamentalist hermeneutic.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

It’s writers often supported theological errors, and the biblical tradition later corrects and contradicts itself. It makes theological statements that are such that one or other is true, not both. Many tend to call this phenomenon a ‘tension’. But aren’t many simply contradictions, thus making the contrary theological assertion an error? This is the essence of ‘sublation’ I mentioned first here.

a) The righteous will get along dandy thanks (Proverbs), or perhaps in real life things are not so simple (Ecclesiastes). Cf. Childs OT work on this.

***END-QUOTE***

Another example of pop fundamentalism, in which you treat the Book of Proverbs as a promise box. Yet this is not based on either a close reading of Proverbs or a proper understanding of genre criticism. As Bruce Waltke points out, “they do not assert that divine retribution operates like clockwork. Statements like 11:56 need to be qualified by other proverbs,” The Book of Proverbs 1-15 (Eerdmans 2004), 76.

“As noted above, the epigrammatic nature of the proverbs often causes the audience to overlook the counterproverbs that qualify these promises,” ibid. 108.

And as Tremper Longman also notes, “Another feature of a proverb is that it does not teach a universally valid truth. On the contrary, proverbs are true only if stated at the right time and in the right circumstance. A number of proverbs makes this explicit…The time-sensitive nature of proverbs is not unique to Hebrew wisdom: it is inherent in the proverb form…The point is clear. The conditions for the truth of the proverb must be explored before or as it is being applied,” Proverbs (Baker 2006), 31-32.

“Proverbs are not promises or guarantees, but rather that rewards and punishments are (dis)incentives of certain types of behavior. The proverbs direct one toward that behavior most likely to produce beneficial results—all things being equal,” ibid. 33.

“It is in the nature of the proverb not to give promises but rather to indicate the best route toward reward—all things being equal…A single proverb does not intend to address all the nuances of a situation; it just gives a snapshot of life to motive proper behavior,” ibid. 85.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

b) Will all be saved in the end?

***END-QUOTE***

A several issues:

i) Notice that, according to Tilling, the Bible gives contradictory information on who will be saved. Everyone? Or only a subset of humanity?

If the Bible can’t even give a consistent answer on something as fundamental as who will be saved, then how can Tilling regard the Bible as reliable in any respect?

ii) Also keep in mind that Tilling is presumably alluding to NT theology. In that event, later biblical tradition didn’t correct earlier biblical tradition. Rather, the contradiction lies in later biblical tradition.

iii) If he’s alluding to the use of universal quantifiers (“all”), then this is yet another example of his hermeneutical naiveté. How did he get this far in his studies without mastering the distinction between denotation and connotation, intension and extension?

A universal quantifier doesn’t pick out any particular referent. Rather, the referent is supplied by the context, and not the quantifier.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

c) Will God punish the children for the father sin or not?

***END-QUOTE***

I assume Tilling is alluding to an apparent contradiction between the alleged emphasis on corporate responsibility in the Mosaic law over against the alleged emphasis on individual responsibility in Ezk 18. If so, then he has grossly oversimplified the teaching of both, as can be seen had he bothered to consult Block and Duguid on Ezk 18, for starters.

***QUOTE***

d) Can God be seen? Yes or no?

***END-QUOTE***

Yet another pseudoproblem. On the one hand, God is essentially invisible. On the other hand, God can manifest himself in theophanies. For example, a theophanic angelophany is a manifestation of God. This distinction is repeatedly drawn in Scripture. Cf. J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Zondervan 1995).

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

e) Does God change? Do a bible study.

***END-QUOTE***

The Bible uses many theological metaphors for God, drawn from human affairs. God is a king, husband, father, &c. Once a certain role is (self-)assigned to God, there are various, dramatic aspects that come with the role. He plays his part.

But to take this too literally is to confuse reality with play-acting, history with histrionics. This is theological theater.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

f) Matthew 5:19 ‘Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ But isn’t this exactly what the early church went on to do?

***END-QUOTE***

Tilling has such an undisciplined mind. If the early church was inconsistent with Mt 5:19, how does that show that Mt 5:19 is theologically erroneous?

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

Now I am an evangelical Christian, but I simply refuse to accept the many silly ‘explanations’ for some of the sort of errors I’ve outlined above. To do so would be to ‘leave brain at door before you come in’. Such data as that contained in the points above is, I think, irrefutable reason for rejecting the inerrancy of the bible as defined in my first post in this series.

***END-QUOTE***

Actually, Tilling has done a wonderful job of leaving his brain at the door. He is attacking inerrancy by raising one brainless objection after another.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

‘But, Chris’, some may respond, ‘these are hardly serious errors to significantly challenge our understanding of what is necessary for salvation’! I agree. But the doctrine of inerrancy is making a claim that the investigation of smaller details can either falsify or verify. In this case, inerrancy is soundly falsified.

***END-QUOTE***

Other issues aside, if he thinks the Bible speaks with more than one voice on how many people are saved, then this is not a “smaller detail,” but goes directly to “our understanding of what is necessary for salvation.”

What is Tilling’s problem, exactly? Is it that he’s not terribly bright? Is that why he contradicts himself so readily?

Or is he an intellectual slouch? Certainly he’s made no concerted effort to consult the standard exegetical literature before compiling his laundry list of Biblical “errors.”

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

In light of this quote, here are four more problems, as I see them, with the doctrine of inerrancy.
The doctrine of inerrancy cannot safeguard an objective interpretation of the Scriptures, and even undermines it. Why is this so? When the Bible is read through the eyes of the ‘faith commitment’ of inerrancy, it is inevitable that one then seeks to explain away the contradictions and tensions found therein, to harmonise - even though the Bible is as Jaspers says. The difficulties of the harmonisation agenda can be clearly seen by reading a representative book that attempts just such a thing: H. Lindsell’s, The Battle for the Bible. In it he attempts to reconcile the contradictions in the Gospel accounts concerning when the cock crowed in relation to Peter’s denials of Jesus. In his harmonisation, Lindsell ends up having to say, in the name of harmonisation, that Peter must have denied Jesus six times! However, not only does this detract the reader from what each Gospel is trying to say, but also ends up invalidating all of the Gospel accounts!

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/03/inerrancy-pt5.html

***END-QUOTE***

i) It’s true that commitment to inerrancy can sometimes lead to forced or fanciful harmonizations. However, Tilling uses the very same hermeneutical approach as Lindsell. He shares the same assumptions, but draws a contrary conclusion.

ii) In addition, the denial of inerrancy can also lead one to take the easy way out. Indeed, Tilling illustrates this mentality to perfection. Because he comes to the Bible with the assumption that Scripture is errant, we are treated his shallow, knee-jerk misreading of Scripture. He simply assumes that this or that passage is wrong, and that’s the end of it. No need for further study. His attitude breeds superficiality.

***QUOTE***

The doctrine of inerrancy also promotes ‘misleading expectations’ (Models for Scripture, 278) regarding the content in nature of Scripture. Having come from a Fundamentalist background and my then affirmation of inerrancy, it was an extremely difficult process for me to start reading the Bible more intelligently, with all of my critical faculties. My faith itself came into question, something that forced me to reanalyse my doctrine of Scripture. I suspect that the Ehrmans and Funks of this world exist precisely, or at least partly, because of the promotion of the doctrine of inerrancy. The doctrine is so fragile because it doesn't measure up to reality.

***END-QUOTE***

No, the false expectation which illogical minds like Tilling, Funk, and Ehrman are suffering from is the assumption that if Scripture were inerrant and inspired, then there would be no obscurities in the record of Scripture.

***QUOTE***

This ‘misleading of expectations’ manifests in another way. It encourages evangelism to treat the honest and serious questions of many people in a flippant way and demand that, in order to become Christian, some have to turn off their brains. This comes to the fore all the more clearly in the doctrinal statements of many organisations and churches which place the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture right at the top. This is a travesty!

***END-QUOTE***

Actually, nothing is more flippant than the way in which Tilling rattles off one lame-brained objection after another. Tilling is one of these conceited individuals who prides himself on his intellectual attainments when, in fact, his actual performance is distinguished by its slipshod, anti-intellectualism.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

The oft quoted 2 Tim 3:16 passage, in light of the fact that the quotes from the OT in 2 Tim come from the LXX, not the original autographs or even original Hebrew, suggests the author/editor of 2 Tim seemed happy to ascribe inspiration to (faulty) copies, not original autographs.

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2006/03/inerrancy-pt4.html

***END-QUOTE***

No, what I take it to mean is that Paul is ascribing inspiration to copies in a derivative sense. Even faulty copies are inspired in the derivative sense that when a translation or copy of what an OT prophet said or wrote accurately preserves or accurately renders what he said or penned, then it’s equivalent to the original utterance.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

Why was God so careful to inspire texts so thoroughly, overriding human imperfections, only to give up once the final ‘full stop’ was penned, and allow for variety and error? Can a reasonable theological explanation for this be given? It suggests that what God starts, he won’t bring to completion (cf. Phil 1:6).

If God can mediate his truth through imperfect copies, which inerrantists will insist, then isn’t the necessity for the theory of flawless autographs immediately nullified? (For these three points, cf. the discussion in Law’s Inspiration, 90-93)

***END-QUOTE***

Two issues:

i) That’s the wrong way to frame the issue. Whether or not the Urtext is inerrant is a factual question, not a pragmatic question. The case for or against the inerrancy of the Urtext does not depend on the practical value of inerrant autographs.

ii) How do we keep time? Ultimately, by Greenwich mean time.

Of course, most of us don’t consult GMT directly when we set our clocks and watches. Rather, we use other sources. But, ultimately, these other sources need to be calibrated against GMT to be accurate.

Now suppose, for some reason, that GMT were no longer accessible. In that event, we’d have to set some clocks and watches by other clocks and watches.

Does this mean there was never any value in having GMT? Hardly. For even if we lost that absolute standard of comparison, we still have various timepieces which were set to that standard when it was accessible.

And some clocks or watches keep better time than others. A cesium clock is more accurate than a Timex.

So even if GMT was now inaccessible, we are far better off for having had that frame of reference than if we never had any absolute standard whatsoever against which to calibrate all our clocks and watches. And the same can be said of textual criticism.

Continuing:

***QUOTE***

And most importantly - there are errors in the Bible that simply cannot be accounted for by copyist errors.

***END-QUOTE***

This is a straw man argument since no reasonable inerrantist would argue otherwise. But there’s a typology of scribal error. Scribes tend to make certain kinds of mistakes. So there’s nothing unreasonable about attributing a mistake to scribal error when, in fact, it’s the kind of mistake a scribe was liable to make.