ErrancyWiki: Where are the Inerrantists?

[technomage]

ModStaff: if this is not the correct forum, please move appropriately.

Well, ErrancyWiki (http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page) has been up for a few weeks now ... but while we've gotten some interest from Errantists, we have very little activity from the Inerrantist side. I'd like to invite any interested Inerrantists--or biblical scholars in general, whether professional or "armchair scholars"--to participate.

But as part of this invitation, let me say this: the purpose of ErrancyWiki is not to judge who has the strongest argument, but simply to be a forum to present the various arguments. So don't be afraid that someone will come along and laugh at your efforts: you may have some insight that the rest of us have missed.

The address is http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page ... and you're invited!

[FlimFlamboyant]

Without wasting too much time actually examining the site, I would just like to point out that not all "innerantists" believe that there are no errors in the manuscript copies or the translations that hail from them. In fact, few hold to such a position (with the exception of the KJV-Only crowd). The absence of "inerrantists" is more than likely a result of probability than anything else.

[technomage]

Without wasting too much time actually examining the site, I would just like to point out that not all "innerantists" believe that there are no errors in the manuscript copies or the translations that hail from them. In fact, few hold to such a position (with the exception of the KJV-Only crowd). The absence of "inerrantists" is more than likely a result of probability than anything else.

Personally, I'm not too worried about the issues of transmission--as you said, most don't hold for perfect document transmission (though even as someone who's not an inerrantist, I must say that transmission is darn good). But there are several areas of the "Inerrancy - Errancy" issue that have simply gone begging for defense: while I've done what I can to settle some issues, I feel a bit awkward being both an administrator and an active participant. I don't want anyone getting the idea that my weighing in on an argument is the "final word"--but from the crowd here, I doubt I would have any such problems. :wink:

[jason]

Why would they bother ?

I mentioned this to PK when he first let everyone know about the site.

Jason

[8320john]

ModStaff: if this is not the correct forum, please move appropriately.

Well, ErrancyWiki (http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page) has been up for a few weeks now ... but while we've gotten some interest from Errantists, we have very little activity from the Inerrantist side. I'd like to invite any interested Inerrantists--or biblical scholars in general, whether professional or "armchair scholars"--to participate.

But as part of this invitation, let me say this: the purpose of ErrancyWiki is not to judge who has the strongest argument, but simply to be a forum to present the various arguments. So don't be afraid that someone will come along and laugh at your efforts: you may have some insight that the rest of us have missed.

The address is http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page ... and you're invited!

Where are the inerrantists?

We is here boss...we is everythere where the Holy Ghost anoints men and women, boys and girls with His Spirit, dem other folks, well youse knows what de is. Right?

Back to the Inerrant Word

"...ye MUST be born again." -- Yeshua

[technomage]

Why would they bother ?

Why not? ErracyWiki is a place where arguments--both for and against--Inerrancy can be collected and analyzed, allowing the reader to make their own decisions. It's not about "winning" or "losing"--it's about collecting and disseminating information.

I mentioned this to PK when he first let everyone know about the site.

I remember ... and this may sound odd from me talking to you, but I hope you'll reconsider. You especially, Jason: as an inerrantist, if you apply half the diligence towards ErrancyWiki as you do towards other endeavors I've seen you take on, you'll be a valuable asset to the site.

[jason]

Why not? ErracyWiki is a place where arguments--both for and against--Inerrancy can be collected and analyzed, allowing the reader to make their own decisions. It's not about "winning" or "losing"--it's about collecting and disseminating information.
Because as I said to Peter, unless there is serious quality control on the part of "errantist" posts, there is no point. It is trivial to read the english version, behave like a moron and claim their is an error or a problem. It takes much much more work to explode that error, and then after taking the time to do so, the other side just replies with "you're just making excuses". I don't have the time or the energy to waste on such a fools errand.

You especially, Jason: as an inerrantist, if you apply half the diligence towards ErrancyWiki as you do towards other endeavors I've seen you take on, you'll be a valuable asset to the site.
Except i'm not convinced it isn't a fools errand. I don't have much patience for this sort of thing because I don't know of anybody that has been convinced by having their questions answered in this manner. All that happens is that those who toss such "problems" out just move onto more. So why would I spend my time doing this when I can spend it productivly elsewhere ?

I mean seriously, this is what I found as the featured "pro-piece".


Job 1:7

How is it that an omniscient God would not know the origin of Satan? The question makes no sense. God would certainly know the whereabouts of Satan. Moreover, Satan is presumed to be present everywhere at all times. How is it that ANY being that is always everywhere can explain where he has been or where he is going?

The logic escapes me.
:no:

Jason

[technomage]

Because as I said to Peter, unless there is serious quality control on the part of "errantist" posts, there is no point.

But Jason--that is the point. Yes, you're going to get some serious work on the Pro side, but you're also going to get some real nut-jobs. We've got one user there who's gone on for pages and pages about one particular letter in the Matthian genalogies--Matt 1:8. It's an extremely well-constructed argument, but in that particular case it's a tempest in a teapot, because he's arguing the difference betwee "Asa" and "Asaph." (Since "PH" is represented by one letter in Greek, that's only one character, not two.)

It takes much much more work to explode that error, and then after taking the time to do so, the other side just replies with "you're just making excuses".

Nope--because that's not how the site works. Their side makes their argument, your side makes your argument. In that area, there is quality control on both sides. We'll take your example as a case-in-point.

Except i'm not convinced it isn't a fools errand. I don't have much patience for this sort of thing because I don't know of anybody that has been convinced by having their questions answered in this manner. All that happens is that those who toss such "problems" out just move onto more. So why would I spend my time doing this when I can spend it productivly elsewhere ?

I mean seriously, this is what I found as the featured "pro-piece".


Job 1:7

How is it that an omniscient God would not know the origin of Satan? The question makes no sense. God would certainly know the whereabouts of Satan. Moreover, Satan is presumed to be present everywhere at all times. How is it that ANY being that is always everywhere can explain where he has been or where he is going?

The logic escapes me.
:no:

Jason, that's the featured Con piece--and as you'll note, I'm the person who responded. I'm quite capable at smacking down a silly argument without violating the rules of the site.

Will it change minds? One thing I'm hoping for is that we do get the stupid arguments collected, so that someone with some sense can go through them and show why those arguments are stupid. And I'm not talking "That's just stupid"--I'm talking demonstrating why the argument doesn't work.

On the Con side, that's what the site is all about--giving people the tools to counter the stupid arguments.

[Minnesota]

A Cup of Mystery

I can only imagine that any lack of response from inerrantists is because they they need not address all passages. There single position, the Bible is inerrant, covers any and all particular arguments against errancy. All they need do is establish, to their satisfaction, an argument "proving" the Bible is inerrant, and that argument suffices for all claims to the contrary. I wouldn't look for much input from them. "The Bible, all of it, is inerrant, and that's that!"

[Darth Executor]

I'd help but I'm lazy so no.

[jason]

Well I did two of them

Jason

[technomage]

Well I did two of them

Great! I hope you do many more!

And I'm not saying that I want all the inerrantists to spend all of their free time there--but if you folks come across something in your own research, please don't hesitate to share it. That's what we're their for!

[technomage]

I'd help but I'm lazy so no.
:lol:

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Well, it's been done before! I have this (large) book on my shelf addressing these issues, verse by verse, why should someone type all this in, where anyone can edit it?

There are websites, too, just as at Tektonics, and the computerized "Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics," and Jason Gastrich's "Annotated Skeptic's Bible," and Zondervan's "Encyclopedia of BIble Difficulties," and so forth. So the resources are available, and the size of the job is rather daunting, again, where all your efforts can be edited away.

I would say if there are new thoughts people have, that should be posted, otherwise "See one of these references" on the home page would be appropriate, IMHO...

Blessings,
Lee

[Sheepdog]

moved to General Theistics, as this topic doesn't fit quite right in Theology 201.

[Timothy Leary]

I'm trying to add a bit more of the "pro" side to the issues, though I absolutely do not believe in the New Testament. But, I don't have as much time for the Wiki as I wish I did.

[Jaltus]

Frankly, the arguments on both sides right now look pretty poor. Also, the name "errancywiki" already presupposes a conclusion.

[technomage]

Frankly, the arguments on both sides right now look pretty poor.

So get on there and show us what some serious scholarship looks like! :thumb:

Seriously, yeah--a lot of the Pro arguments are tempests in a teapot, and I can't get too many folks interested in the Con side to actually participate.