An errant look at Biblical inerrancy and infallibility

Is the Bible without errors?

The word "inerrant" means "without error".
The word "infallible" means "not capable of error".

Some people use the terms interchangeably.

There is no way to know that something is "without error" or "not capable of error" so the ideas are assumptions. The danger is that assumptions can be misused.

Inerrancy reasoning fallacy: How can you find errors in the Bible unless you know what it is supposed to say? Do you have to, in a sense, make yourself God, or become as God, to make these decisions?

The English word "errand" is not related to the word "errancy" as in "error".

Philippians 3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. [kjv]

κατα σκοπον διωκω εις το βραβειον της ανω κλησεως του θεου εν χριστω ιησου [gnt]

How does one know if one is aiming for the correct target?

You might have "accepted" the "false goal" and "rejected" the "true goal".

Paul is aiming for the correct target. How about the Philippians?
The Greek for "press" is that of "pursue" or "persecute" depending on context.

Keep the eyes on the prize. The Greek word for "prize" is the source of the English word "bravo".

More: Mosaics

Philippians 3:14

All

KJV: I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

Greek: κατα σκοπον διωκω επι εις το βραβειον της ανω κλησεως του θεου εν χριστω ιησου

Latin: ad destinatum persequor ad bravium supernae vocationis Dei in Christo Iesu

Geneva: And follow hard toward the marke, for the prise of the hie calling of God in Christ Iesus.

Luther: und jage nach dem vorgesteckten Ziel, nach dem Kleinod, welches vorhält die himmlische Berufung Gottes in Christo Jesu.

Have you ever heard about "changing" the "error of your ways"?

An error and a change are both defined as a difference between the observed behavior and the expected or desired behavior.
A warning is similar to an error except that it is not considered as important an issue as an error.

To identify an error requires a specification and one should not use the operational code as a specification.

Inerrancy reasoning fallacy: You cannot know that the Bible has an error unless you know what the Bible is supposed to say.

More: Errors and changes

▶

1 Blivet fork

2 Ideas on the fork

3 Bible meanings

4 Logical errors

5 Reality systems

Two people can see the same thing in different ways. Sometimes both are true in some sense.

Suppose an email message (Bible) arrives that claims to be from your boss (God).

You find some spelling and grammer errers, but can still understand the message. Due to inerrancy considerations, you might reason as follows.

The boss made a mistake. I can ignore the message.
Someone must have changed the message but the original was inerrant.

Does it matter?

The message tells me about things that only the boss (God) knows. (authentication code)

Is the authentication more important than any spelling or grammar mistakes in the message?

Discuss: Why do some people spend more time arguing about spelling and grammer errers and fixing them than in actually doing what the message says to do?

[spoofing, man in the middle attack]

More: Mathematical constants and Hebrew pi

The ancient Greek word "σφάλμα" ≈ "fall, be cast down" which comes from the ancient Greek word "σφάλλω" ≈ "topple, be foiled".

A possible connection is the Latin word "fallo" ≈ "deceive, trick" which is the source of the English word "fail" and the German word "fehlen" ≈ "weak, lacking".

The ancient Greek word "ἀσφαλής" ≈ "immovable, unfailing, safe" and is, literally, "not fallen down". The modern Greek word "ασφαλής" (a-sfa-LEES) ≈ "safe, secure". So in baseball, one may slide into a base, falling down in the process, and be called "safe" or in Greek, literally, "not fallen down".

The modern Greek word "σφάλμα" (SFAL-ma) ≈ "error, fault".

The modern Greek word "λάθος" (LA-thos) ≈ "error, mistake" .

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; [kjv]

επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων [gnt]

The Greek for "hope" is that of a "well-founded expectation".

The Greek for "cannot lie" is that of being "without falsehood". Paul, writing to Timothy on Crete, will bring up the Cretan paradox having to do with "lies" in ten verses. This Cretan paradox appears to have influenced the translation of "cannot lie".

*G893 *1 ἀψευδής (aps-yoo-dace') : from G1 (as a negative particle) and G5579; veracious:--that cannot lie.

Usage

All

αψευδης

Titus 1:2 ... life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

*G893 *1 ἀψευδής (aps-yoo-dace') : from G1 (as a negative particle) and G5579; veracious:--that cannot lie.

Words: αψευδης=1

The ancient Greek word "ἀψευδής" ≈ "without falsehood, truthful" and comes from two parts.

The ancient Greek negation prefix "α" ≈ "not".
The ancient Greek word "ψευδής" ≈ "lying, false, untrue".

In many parts of Greece, being good at lying and deceiving was considered a virtue. This has always been true in zero-sum games such as warfare.

Titus 1:2

All

KJV: In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Greek: επ ελπιδι ζωης αιωνιου ην επηγγειλατο ο αψευδης θεος προ χρονων αιωνιων

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. [kjv]

ειπεν τις εξ αυτων ιδιος αυτων προφητης κρητες αει ψευσται κακα θηρια γαστερες αργαι [gnt]

1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; [kjv]

η μαρτυρια αυτη εστιν αληθης δι ην αιτιαν ελεγχε αυτους αποτομως ινα υγιαινωσιν εν τη πιστει [gnt]

Russell paradox: "I am lying". This is a self-referential paradox that results in an infinite regress. (no solution)

Cretan paradox: "All people are liars". One truth-teller makes that person a lier. No contradiction or paradox. (simple solution)

The phrase "All Cretans are liars" is known as the "Epimenides paradox". Unlike the modern "Russell paradox" to which it is often compared, the Epimenides paradox has a simple solution and does not make what Paul says in Titus 1 incorrect.

More: Titus 1 The Epimenides paradox about Cretans

Paul is a candidate for who wrote Hebrews, but there no general agreement on this. Eusebius (repeating others) claims that Paul left his name off as Paul was a vessel to the gentiles and the Hebrews would ignore anything coming from him.

Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: [kjv]

ινα δια δυο πραγματων αμεταθετων εν οις αδυνατον ψευσασθαι θεον ισχυραν παρακλησιν εχωμεν οι καταφυγοντες κρατησαι της προκειμενης ελπιδος [gnt]

What are the "two" "immutable" "things"?

The Greek word translated as "impossible" is used by Aristotle as that of "potentially possible" as in a "potentiality". The Greek word for "things" is most often used to refer to physical or concrete "things" and not abstract "things". A "lie" is an abstract "thing".

The statement on it being "impossible" for God to "lie" is a possible basis for claiming logical inerrancy of the Bible.

Hebrews 6:18

All

KJV: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Greek: ινα δια δυο πραγματων αμεταθετων εν οις αδυνατον ψευσασθαι θεον ισχυραν παρακλησιν εχωμεν οι καταφυγοντες κρατησαι της προκειμενης ελπιδος

1 John 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. [kjv]

ουκ εγραψα υμιν οτι ουκ οιδατε την αληθειαν αλλ οτι οιδατε αυτην και οτι παν ψευδος εκ της αληθειας ουκ εστιν [gnt]

Here we have a logical double negative. That is, it is not a double negative for emphasis but a logical double negative resulting in a positive.

This statement by John appears to be a tautology. That is, by definition, a lie is that which is not of the truth.

1 John 2:21

All

KJV: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Greek: ουκ εγραψα υμιν οτι ουκ οιδατε την αληθειαν αλλ οτι οιδατε αυτην και οτι παν ψευδος εκ της αληθειας ουκ εστιν

John continues on the subject of "truth" and that of a "lie".

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. [kjv]

τις εστιν ο ψευστης ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι ιησους ουκ εστιν ο χριστος ουτος εστιν ο αντιχριστος ο αρνουμενος τον πατερα και τον υιον [gnt]

2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. [kjv]

πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει [gnt]

1 John 2:22

All

KJV: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Greek: τις εστιν ο ψευστης ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι ιησους ουκ εστιν ο χριστος ουτος εστιν ο αντιχριστος ο αρνουμενος τον πατερα και τον υιον

1 John 2:23

All

KJV: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Greek: πας ο αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει

This page looks at translation issues by way of a somewhat silly self-referential sentence. The issues identified happen in real translations and show the difficulty of creating accurate language translations (in the presence of errors or ambiguities).

Here is a self-referential sentence.

This is a sentence.

No problem here. How about the following self-referential sentence?

You are reading this sentence.

How might this be "true" or "false"?

What is not there may be important?

Consider this self-referential sentence that has real issues. First, find them. Then ask yourself the following question. How easy is it to fix them?

Here is the puzzle in text form.

Version #1:

There is three errers in this sentence.

First them. Then ask yourself the following question. How easy is it to fix them?

The following is a sequence of changes to fix identified errors. There are many possible sequences. One is chosen here. The underlined parts are the parts that have been changed from the previous sentence.

First, let us change "errers" to "errors".

Version #2:

There is three errors in this sentence.

There are now only two errors in the sentence. Next, let us change "is" to "are".

Version #3:

There are three errors in this sentence.

There is now only one error in the sentence. Next, let us change "three" to "one".

Version #4:

There are one errors in this sentence.

We have fixed that error, but introduced two more errors in the sentence. Let us change "are" to "is". Note that this was in the original sentence.

Version #5:

There is one errors in this sentence.

There are now only one error in the sentence. Let us change "errors" to "error".

Version #6:

There is one error in this sentence.

Notice that there are no errors in the sentence. Let us change "one" to "zero".

Version #7:

There is zero error in this sentence.

There are now two errors in the sentence. Let us change "error" to "errors".

Version #8:

There is zero errors in this sentence.

There is now one error in the sentence. Let us change "is" to "are", a change previously made and undone.

Version #9:

There are zero errors in this sentence.

The sentence is now correct. But what have we changed in the meaning and sentence itself?

The preceding sequence may seem like a silly little example, but it exemplifies the issues of translating one text into another text and trying to address apparent mistakes in the original text. Let us look at a summary of the progression.

#1: There is three errers in this sentence. #2: There is three errors in this sentence. #3: There are three errors in this sentence. #4: There are one errors in this sentence. #5: There is one errors in this sentence. #6: There is one error in this sentence. #7: There is zero error in this sentence. #8: There is zero errors in this sentence. #9: There are zero errors in this sentence.

Have we lost anything in trying to "fix" the errors? That is, in trying to find a "fixed point".

Translation can be very non-obvious and difficult if not impossible (to retain the original meaning). Consider the following word puzzle.

There is three errers in this sentence.

In translation, rather than trying to find and fix the errors, a better way might be to let the original sentence as it is and add another sentence (as a gloss, etc.) that refers to the erroneous sentence, something like the following.

The previous sentence contains three errors.

In graduate school, for a Ph.D. in computer science, we needed to pass a scientific language such as German. One could not just take the test. Since computer science had funds, some of those funds were used to support language graduate students. After a few lessons, the teacher said I could come when I wanted to and take the test at the end, since I had an advanced knowledge of German.

Near the start, I did ask her the following. If I could produce a English sentence that she could not translate into German, then I would get an A and pass the course. She did not accept but wanted to know the sentence. The sentence was, "This sentence is in English". If you translate it into "Dieses Satz ist auf Englisch", then the sentence is now false since it is no longer in English. But if you translate it into "Dieses Satz ist auf Deutsch" then the sentence is true but is not an accurate translation of the original sentence. This concept is related to many logical paradoxes involving self-reference.