Yes, just like following my example above with Hannity. This is exactly what I mean. You can nuance things in a deceitful manipulative way or you can do so responsibly where the essence of the message remains faithful even if the wording or descriptions are not exhaustive or with full-disclosure.

I know this is hard and I am really not trying to dance around. I just want to be careful that I don’t imply a hermeneutic that is too strict and docetic.

Michael,

With regard to the meaning of nuance, I want to make sure I understand your definition clearly as it seems to be essential to understanding your view of inerrancy.

You said it is not necessarily a lie or an untruth – but are you saying that it could it be one?

Or, are you saying that when the authors nuanced things they may have summarized details (less precision), they may have left details out (it did not have to be an exhaustive account), but they had to stay within the boundaries of what actually did happen and could not report anything which was inaccurate or untrue?

Meaning, they could not have said “Frank said … ” when it was really Bob who said it, for example. Or like Sam asked, they could not have said “some man…” when it was actually a woman. Do I understand you correctly?

thanks,

-steve

A nuance is not necessarily a lie or untruth. It is a bending of things to fit ones purpose. If it did not fit Luke’s purpose to tell exactly what Christ said on the cross to the full detail he could have, he could nuance it by leaving out certian details.

A nuance is also describing an event through the eyes of your purpose.

Sorry, I’m still not 100% sure I understand – Thanks for your patience.

No problem with the idea that innerancy allows for different accounts to include different details, as long as all the details in all the accounts are accurate and true.

I’m just not sure what you mean by nuance. Can a nuanced man become a woman? Can a nuanced Bob become an Ed?

If the authors include a detail, like someone’s name, shouldn’t we expect the name to be correct?

Sam, it is the second. People tell stories including or excluding different details for reasons motivated by their purpose. If they nuance things (chronology, details of events, or even wording) this does not mean that what they said was inaccurate. They were not trying to write technically precise histories.

Michael,

Sorry, I’m still trying to understand your position on innerrancy.

Are you saying that two accounts of the same event might contain details that contradict, but that it doesn’t matter because the authors weren’t trying to be “technically precise?”

Or are you merely pointing out that two accounts of the same event might contain different details, that don’t contradict?

Sam

I like it!

And since the message is what is relevant … since we, through the guidance of the Spirit and a lot of diligent hard work (thanks Dan!), are preserving the message, then the inspiration of the message can be said to remain in tact. Therefore, in a sense, our current translations remain inspired.

I’ll stop now – thanks!

You bet brother.

I believe inerrancy is true. Yet at the same time I don’t believe it is true because for the Christian faith to be true, the Bible must be inerrant. I simply believe that the Bible, in the autographa, is inerrant because it is inspired. They are connected.

With this knowledge, we pursue textual criticism so that we can faithfully represent God’s word. Yet at the same time we know that we are trying to preserve the message. It is the message that matters. Many messages can be communicated using different words. Just as “I hit Steve” is the same thing as ” Steve was hit by me,” or even “I punched Steve.” (Sorry, just seemed like a good illustration – while I do want to hit you, that is irrelevant right now).

The key here is that the message is the important factor, not the EXACT wording. Yet at the same time, words do make sentences, sentences to make paragraphs, paragraphs do make arguments, and arguments do give the message. This is why we need to be very diligent about seeking to establish the text as accurately as we can.

Hope this helps.

Michael, I agree with you. But you are using language which slips into a different vocabulary. Stay with me just for fun.

No manuscript can ever be said to be error free if the definition of error is an exact representation of the original – I understand that. But if the basis for comparison is that which God desired to have communicated, then His continual involvement ensures a freedom from “error” because it continues to be what He wants to be communicated. Does this make sense?

Isn’t the real issue with inspiration and inerrancy the validity of the Bible I hold in my hands? If so, it seems that for our “statements” to have any value they ought to lead us to this end. My Bible (and I’m currently holding five different translations) is the inspired, inerrant Word of God (given the above definitions of inspired and inerrant).

Thanks for letting me blog with you – I’ve missed the interaction of TTP.