I noticed the above video from the Thoughtful Faith channel in which Jacob Hansen is again questioning the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, specifically the Old Testament scripture. I had previously discussed most of the issues he raises in my previous blog posts, therefore there is no need to repeat them again here. I will briefly comment only on something which he had not previously mentioned. The segment I will be commenting on occurs between 4:00 and 8:00 minutes into the video. At around 4:00 minutes into the video he begins as follows:
Many people find themselves stuck right now between the soul-destroying atheism, and the incoherent mess of creedal Christianity. Jordan [Peterson] does an excellent job of pointing out the problems with the secular worldview; but Alex [O’Connor] does a great job of pointing out the flaws in the creedal tradition. For example, let’s start with the absurd creedal notion of biblical infallibility, and see the problems this creates for Jordan.
The first thing to note here is that the doctrine of biblical infallibility and inerrancy is not a “creedal” issue. It has nothing to do with the “creeds”. The doctrine became an issue following the Protestant Reformation—many centuries after the “creeds” were originally written. His obsession with “creeds” confuses and beclouds the issue. While the doctrine of the divine inspiration of scripture has been acknowledged by Christians throughout history (and indeed affirmed numerous times by Jesus himself in the New Testament, see examples here), the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture became an issue following the Protestant Reformation, and reached its climax in the “International Council on Biblical Inerrancy” held in Chicago in October 1978, which issued the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a written statement of belief formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference, convened by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, and held in Chicago in October 1978. The statement was designed to defend the position of biblical inerrancy against a trend toward liberal conceptions of Scripture. See here for more information. And as far as I am concerned, the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture is not an issue from an LDS theological point of view (as previously discussed, see here).
Then he displays a clip from a video showing first Jordan Peterson, followed by (atheist) Alex O'Connor, in which Alex points to certain passages in the Old Testament which appear to condone slavery (Exodus 21; Deuteronomy 15:12-15; 1 Chronicles 2:34-35), thus concluding that Old Testament scripture is not moral or ethical—and therefore could not have been divinely inspired—and Jacob Hansen agrees! That is another argument he brings against the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture—especially Old Testament scripture. His argument basically is that since slavery is inherently wrong, immoral, and unethical; and there are passages in the Old Testament that appear to condone slavery; therefore those passages are not divinely inspired, and could not have originated from a just, loving, caring, and righteous God. That is his main argument.
The point to be noted here is that in ancient cultures—both Hebrew and non-Hebrew cultures, in both Old and New Testament times, in both Christian and non-Christian cultures—if you needed a domestic servant such as a cook, a gardener, a housekeeper, a nurse, a house maid etc., you would go and buy one. There was no such thing as “employing” a domestic servant in those days, and paying them a monthly “salary” or “wage”—and them being free to leave your “employment” anytime they wanted to. Such a thing did not exist in any ancient cultures—Jewish or non-Jewish, Old or New Testament Times, Christian or non-Christian cultures. There were also “hired servants” in those days to do temporary jobs, such as harvesting a field, or working on a construction site etc., who were then paid an hourly wage, according to the labor that they performed (e.g. Matthew 20:1-8; Luke 15:17,19; John 10:12-13). But there was no such thing as “employing” a domestic servant (permanently) on those terms. Those were only bought and sold. This was true not only of the Old Testament times, but also of New Testament times (e.g. Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-20). These all referred to permanently owned domestic servants—or “slaves” if you wanted to use modern terminology for it—although that would not be accurate.
The problem with the word “slave” in modern English is that it is culturally and psychologically associated with ill-treatment, injustice, and abuse—which was not the case in ancient times. It doesn’t mean that abuses didn’t exist in those days. But in general, it was considered a great honor, privilege, and blessing to be a “servant” (“slave” in modern English) to a righteous, generous, and benevolent master. If you acquired a domestic servant in those conditions, then they became your “property,” you “owned” them; and if they were female, that also gave you the legal and legitimate right to have sex with them, because they were your “property,” you “owned” them. That was true of all cultures in ancient times—in Old as well as New Testament times. Very beautiful young women were bought and sold in the “slave market” at very high prices. You had to be very rich to be able to afford to buy one! If you saw one that you absolutely fell in love with, and you had to sell half your property to be able to afford to buy her, that is what you would do! In the Old testament passages that these folks are referring to, God is instituting laws to make those practices more humane. He is not “condoning slavery”. Under Old Testament Jewish law for example, if such a “servant” (“slave” if you prefer) was abused by his master, and escaped and sought protection, they had the right of protection (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). They could not be delivered back to their cruel masters. No other culture or society had such rules, as far as I know. Therefore far from “endorsing slavery,” the Old Testament rules ensured that the practice was made more humane. That is evidence that they were inspired by God. Therefore far from undermining the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, they support it. After showing the video clip, he then comments on it as follows:
Here is the reality; the Bible contains contradictions; and atheists like Alex love to point those out, because creedal Christians assume biblical infallibility.
Wrong on all accounts! No contradictions! What he is implying is that those passages in the Old Testament undermine or contradict the underlying moral and ethical basis of the Bible—which of course they don’t, for the reasons explained above. And the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture is not a “creedal” issue. He then continues:
But what Alex does not account for is that the verses like these are an anomaly, that contradict the theme of the biblical corpus; which central theme is that we are all made in the image of God; and so loved and so valued that no matter what our circumstances, Christ was willing to die for us.
Wrong again, no contradictions! The Old Testament rules on “servanthood” (which is the more correct way of describing it) were given by God to humanize the process, and eliminate abuse as much as possible. They are evidence of divine inspiration of scripture—specifically Old Testament scripture in this case—and not the opposite. He then continues:
And Alex [O’Connor] does not realize that the very reason he opposes slavery at all is because he was raised in a Western culture, deeply influenced by the themes of the Bible rather than specific passages that contradict those themes.
Wrong again! The “specific passages” of the Bible that he is referring to do not “contradict those themes,” as explained above. And he finally concludes:
Now all of this is much more easily resolved from a Latter-day Saint paradigm because we hold to biblical reliability rather than the God-breathed word for word biblical infallibility.
Wrong on all accounts. Firstly, LDS theology has no issue whatsoever with biblical infallibility and inerrancy—as previously discussed here; and “God breathed” is a biblical expression (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Secondly, there is no such distinction between “reliability” and “infallibility”. They both amount to the same thing. Scripture cannot be “reliable” if it is not infallible and inerrant. “Reliability” and “infallibility” amount to the same thing.
