Questions for biblical inneranists?

[Gavin]

Not sure I spelled that last word right.

How do those of you who ascribe to biblical innerancy defend this doctrine in the face of criticism that there are contradictions in the Bible. We are going through Genesis in my religion class and my prof, about as left-wing as they come, is hammering it pretty hard. I am not quite sure how to respond. Many of his points are beyond my ability to answer. Any help . . . ?

Does the bible ever even claim innerancy for itself?

[spl_cadet]

www.tektonics.org

And to my knowledge, it does not come out and claim innerancy for itself. It's a question I've been meaning to ask the Protestants actually.

[GrayPilgrim]

First Spl--innerancy is the teaching of the church from the time of the ECF, it is just the name that BB Warfield coined for it, but infallibility was the name used previously, and generally still among many.

Gavin,

Many of the contradictions and errors or based upon a false conception of inerrancy. First, remember that the teaching is that the manuscripts were inerrant, not that we have an inerrant version today. Critics will often point out discrepancies in numbers, that is just plain silly. Over the centuries there have been many different manners in which numbers were written and in the conversion from one system to another may errors crept in to the manuscripts, thus to make an argument based on numbers shows ignorance of scribal techniques, as do most claims of contradictions. Are there any specific texts in general that you have in mind? If so I think that will make answering your question all the more feasible.

GP

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201620#post201620)
spl_cadet:

www.tektonics.org

:thumb: And since it's about Genesis in particular, see Genesis Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp).


And to my knowledge, it does not come out and claim innerancy for itself. It's a question I've been meaning to ask the Protestants actually.

It's a logical deduction from the doctrine of inspiration, since God would not breathe out error. And it follows from the way Christ equated "Scripture says" with "God says". See my post Breaking the Circle (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=83871#post83871)

:huh: Goodness knows why Gavin would want to take a religion class with a lefty Bible-hating antisupernaturalistic bigot though. And they are not called theological cemeteries for nothing. :hrm:

[themuzicman]

1 Timothy claims that all Scripture is God-Breathed. 1 Peter says that the human authors "spoke from God" as they wrote.

To say that the original writings were errant is to say that God is errant.

Now, there may be some picky details that those who would like to disparage the bible point out, but they don't constitute errors, when taken in context.

For instance, Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of the seeds. Well, the celery seed is much smaller than the mustard seed. However, Jesus wasn't making a science lesson, and the people in Israel at that time wouldn't have known what a celery seed was. So, within the context of knowledge of the audience of that day, what Jesus said was true.

There are several other examples of stupid things like this that people pick at the bible over, but they aren't really that significant.

Michael

[Waterrock]

Greetings Gavin,

You asked how a Biblical Inerrantist defends the doctrine against the criticism that there are contradictions in the Bible.

First, allow me to offer a simple definition of inerrancy: the doctrine of inerrancy = the teaching that God inspired the producers of the original text of the Bible to write exactly what He wanted them to write. Since God is truthful, He did not allow them, under His inspiration, to write what is not true.

This does *not* mean that there are no copyist errors, or poor translations, or ambiguities in the text we have to work with nowadays.

You mentioned Genesis. While many Christians will undoubtedly disagree with me, I believe that the best way to maintain the inerrancy of Genesis involves the following:
(a) interpreting Genesis 1 in a way that allows for the "Days" to be long periods of time, in which animal evolution occurs, and
(b) interpreting Noah's Flood as a local event, probably the inundation of the Black Sea Basin which occurred c. 5,600 B.C. (and which the National Geographic Society has been researching for some time).
(c) recognizing that not all of the text was produced spontaneously by Moses; some parts (Gen. 14?) may have been earlier than him, and some parts (Gen. 36:9-43?) were added later, as supplements, by some other inspired author.

I would bring those premises to the table when defending the inerrancy of Genesis. After that point, I would ask about which specific text is being charged with error, and go from there.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 02:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201686#post201686)
GrayPilgrim:

First Spl--innerancy is the teaching of the church from the time of the ECF, it is just the name that BB Warfield coined for it, but infallibility was the name used previously, and generally still among many.

Oh I know that (as I am Catholic), but I thought that it'd be an interesting thing for sola scripturists, though I figured the response would be similar to what Socrates said.

[bar Jonah]

But what values is there in the term "inerrancy" when we have all of these blatant textual contradictions, etc., in our contemporary manuscripts? Why not simply hold to term "infallibility?"

It's like the Mormons saying, "Man, these golden tablets, you shoulda seen them! It's too bad an angel took them back to Heaven, but boy, they are divinely inspired scripture!"

GODISNOWHERE rejects inerrancy, because we reject the definition of inerrancy that only concerns itself with the autographs. We don't have any autographs. So what's the point, really?

[themuzicman]

We have enough various copies from early enough times cared for by enough people who wished to preserve them that we can establish to what we think is over 99 percent accuracy what the original text said, and the remaining 1 percent are only technical disputes that have little to do with the meaning of the text.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 11:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201961#post201961)
themuzicman:
We have enough various copies from early enough times cared for by enough people who wished to preserve them that we can establish to what we think is over 99 percent accuracy what the original text said, and the remaining 1 percent are only technical disputes that have little to do with the meaning of the text.

Michael
99% is absolutely outstanding. But it isn't inerrancy. It's almost inerrancy. It's "good enough." The word inerrancy is by definition an absolute term.

And we ain't playin' horseshoes, nor are we lobbing hand grenades, by the grace of God.

[themuzicman]

Inerrancy refers to inerrancy in meaning, not in technical terms. If we're missing an accent here or there is a dispute over a letter there doesn't impact on the meaning of the text. What we have, even in the greek, is compilable into a unity that presents the same inerrant message.

If you hadn't notices, I said that the remaining 1 percent were technical issues that had nothing to do with meaning.

Besides, I don't think we can count out the work of God in preserving His Word. If He got it written down inerrantly, certainly He can preserve it that way.

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 11:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201971#post201971)
themuzicman:

Inerrancy refers to inerrancy in meaning, not in technical terms. If we're missing an accent here or there is a dispute over a letter there doesn't impact on the meaning of the text. What we have, even in the greek, is compilable into a unity that presents the same inerrant message.

If you hadn't notices, I said that the remaining 1 percent were technical issues that had nothing to do with meaning.

Besides, I don't think we can count out the work of God in preserving His Word. If He got it written down inerrantly, certainly He can preserve it that way.

Michael
Then let's say we hold to "inerrancy of meaning" rather than inerrancy of scripture, the latter of which is obviously not actual.

Of course, I thought "infallibility" referred to the inerrancy of meaning and of doctrine of scripture... so why don't we just hold to infallibility?

:shrug:

[themuzicman]

I keep infallibility and inerrancy pretty much in the same boat. I don't think anyone really holds to stroke by stroke inerrancy, (except maybe the KJVO folks, but they think that the bible was written in English and translated to hebrew, aramaic and greek.)

Inerrancy refers to the accuracy in the telling of the story, and infallibility refers to the cohesive consistency of message (I think.)

Michael

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 01:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202072#post202072)
themuzicman:

I keep infallibility and inerrancy pretty much in the same boat. I don't think anyone really holds to stroke by stroke inerrancy, (except maybe the KJVO folks, but they think that the bible was written in English and translated to hebrew, aramaic and greek.)

Inerrancy refers to the accuracy in the telling of the story, and infallibility refers to the cohesive consistency of message (I think.)

Michael
But the "telling of the story" isn't without error! You're still holding to the inerrancy of something that doesn't exist, anyway. (And don't get me wrong, I stand on faith that the autographs were inerrant. Let's not mistake that. That's not my point.)

I'm agreeing with you on the state of the Bible in regards to its accuracy and reliability and infallibility. I just think the word inerrancy is a terrible term for it.

[themuzicman]

Well, if you want to put error in the bible, go ahead. I'll stick with inerrancy.

Michael

[Jaltus]

Inerrancy with regards to the autographs is actually the most sensible position possible. We do not hold to inerrancy of meaning because of passages like John 7:53-8:11 and the Markan ending.

Also, inerrancy of meaning quickly becomes inerrancy of interpretation, which then becomes a shouting match of who is right instead of establishing the text. The autographs were inspired by God, not the copies. If you think the copies were inspired, then you end up a KJVO who rejects the Greek. Sorry, but that is an incoherent position.

If one does not hold to inerrancy, then the move toward liberalism is possible, since parts of the text can be thrown out in order to fit out modernist or postmodernist presuppositions instead of what the Word of God actually says.

RightIdea,

If you do not want to hold to the autographs as being inerrantly inspired, then what is? The entire text critical project is to recover the autographs as closely as possible. With respect to the New Testament, this has been done to within about 99% reliability (unless you are a TR or MT person), with the variations being only simple things like Christ Jesus or Jesus or Jesus Christ. No meaning is missing. However, we go back to the originals because any other manuscript or set of manuscripts can be corrupted, but the originals were from God.

[Gavin]

Luke 16:17, "it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

Matthew 5:18, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "

How do you who make the distinction between the original autographs and the present day copies interpret these verses?

[bar Jonah]

themuzicman:
Well, if you want to put error in the bible, go ahead. I'll stick with inerrancy.

Michael
Huh? :huh: Where do I put error into the Bible?


Jaltus:
Inerrancy with regards to the autographs is actually the most sensible position possible. We do not hold to inerrancy of meaning because of passages like John 7:53-8:11 and the Markan ending.

Also, inerrancy of meaning quickly becomes inerrancy of interpretation, which then becomes a shouting match of who is right instead of establishing the text. The autographs were inspired by God, not the copies. If you think the copies were inspired, then you end up a KJVO who rejects the Greek. Sorry, but that is an incoherent position.

If one does not hold to inerrancy, then the move toward liberalism is possible, since parts of the text can be thrown out in order to fit out modernist or postmodernist presuppositions instead of what the Word of God actually says.

RightIdea,

If you do not want to hold to the autographs as being inerrantly inspired, then what is? The entire text critical project is to recover the autographs as closely as possible. With respect to the New Testament, this has been done to within about 99% reliability (unless you are a TR or MT person), with the variations being only simple things like Christ Jesus or Jesus or Jesus Christ. No meaning is missing. However, we go back to the originals because any other manuscript or set of manuscripts can be corrupted, but the originals were from God.
I just got done saying I believe the autographs were divinely inspired without error... My point was that inerrancy of the autographs has little practical value, as it puts us in the same boat with Mormons in this respect. Therefore the focus should be on infallibility, instead.

Maybe our disconnect is because I work in an evangelism ministry, and I tend to think in terms of communicating truth to non-believers, whereas you may focus on internal issues more. We encounter hundreds of unbelievers who are only happy to ping on scriptural errors and blatant contradictions... to which we say, "So what?" (In a nutshell, of course. Obviously, we say a heck of a lot more than that. LOL)

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 04:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202115#post202115)
RightIdea:


Huh? :huh: Where do I put error into the Bible?


I just got done saying I believe the autographs were divinely inspired without error... My point was that inerrancy of the autographs has little practical value, as it puts us in the same boat with Mormons in this respect. Therefore the focus should be on infallibility, instead.

Maybe our disconnect is because I work in an evangelism ministry, and I tend to think in terms of communicating truth to non-believers, whereas you may focus on internal issues more. We encounter hundreds of unbelievers who are only happy to ping on scriptural errors and blatant contradictions... to which we say, "So what?" (In a nutshell, of course. Obviously, we say a heck of a lot more than that. LOL)

RI,
The problem is that you appear to those of us who hold to innerancy to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I know that you aren't, but the problem is in the fomulation of your posts in this thread. You say both:

I hold that the autographs were innerant
We at GODISNOWHERE reject the teaching of innerancy


I understand what you mean but, you must see the confusion this causes. Moreover, part of the problem is your separation from and denigration of the Anlogia Fidei. Your constant slander of the brothers and sisters who have gone on before is problematic. You have more in common with Athanasius and Luther than with your unsaved neighbor, but you would rather repudiate these brothers in Christ who have helpful answers to many of the questions that we ask. Unfortunatley when you ignore the Analogia Fidei then you must reinvent the wheel, even though there is a perfectly functioning wheel that just needs a patch. You seem to forget that we as Christians are part of a community that stretches over thousands of years and that meaning and interpretation is not a "personal" thing. It is part of the tradition in which we participate. Now I am not arguing for hte magisterium, so don't say "traditions of men", because then I will point out yours, the yeah but argument are less than helpful. I have more that needs to be said to make this coherent, but I have to work on a presentation for tomorrow. Just remmeber before you trash Athanasius, we'd be Arians without out him fighting for the Nicene Creed.

GP

[bar Jonah]

Oy. You should know the creeds and confessions hold no relevance to me doctrinally, whatsoever. That's no secret. :doh:

Two things.

First, I have made it clear repeatedly in this thread (not to mention elsewhere) that I and my ministry reject "inerrancy" because we -- and almost every Christian alive -- define it as inerrancy of existant manuscripts and not the autographs. And such a position misleads our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ, the vast majority of whom ignorantly DO hold to the inerrancy of existant manuscripts. Which is exactly why we seek to educate them on the fact that they are not inerrant at all, and that to hold to such a position can significantly hinder their ability to effectively communicate the gospel to the world, because it sets them up for a big fall.

Second, I have not slandered anyone, whether brothers and sisters in Christ or unbelievers. I battle ideas, not people, and that goes for believers or unbelievers. I resent the accusation that I have slandered anyone, and for you to say I have done so is a slander against me.

[Jaltus]

RightIdea:

Huh? :huh: Where do I put error into the Bible?


I just got done saying I believe the autographs were divinely inspired without error... My point was that inerrancy of the autographs has little practical value, as it puts us in the same boat with Mormons in this respect. Therefore the focus should be on infallibility, instead.


RightIdea:

Two things.

First, I have made it clear repeatedly in this thread (not to mention elsewhere) that I and my ministry reject "inerrancy" because we -- and almost every Christian alive -- define it as inerrancy of existant manuscripts and not the autographs.

You literally contradict yourself on back to back posts. At least be consistent! This is insane, do you personally believe in the inerrancy of the autographs or not?!?! I feel lied to so far in this thread since you have now claimed A and Not A.


Oy. You should know the creeds and confessions hold no relevance to me doctrinally, whatsoever. That's no secret. :doh:

Then why are you a Trinitarian? Are you even orthodox? Do you believe Christ is 100% man and 100% God? If you do not hold to that then you are NOT orthodox. If you do hold to it then you are creedal.

[nomad]

off topic: what is anlogia fidei? google only came up with 1 reference...

[GrayPilgrim]

Sorry--the analogia fidei-- the link I found was most unhelpful, as I used it in a non-Barthian way, which it referenced. In a nutshell it is the looking to the history of the Christian tradition for the purposes of seeing how others within the Christian tradition wrestled with many of the issues that we deal with today. This is not because they are always correct, but because it shows that we are self-conscioulsy working within a tradition, namely in the case of those who hold to inerrancy, Evangelical Protestants in the early part of the 21st century who see themselves not as the arbiter of all knowledge, but rather pilgrims seeking understanding, who recognize that "in a multitude of councilors there is victory."


Sorry, for the high falutin' language I started class last week and thus I'm in those realms of people who speak in another language, called jargon.

[Socrates]

Today @ 08:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202114#post202114)
Gavin:

Luke 16:17, it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
Matthew 5:18, I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. How do you who make the distinction between the original autographs and the present day copies interpret these verses?

JP Holding answered this on Tekton at

In each of the three above arguments, however, despite their varying degree of cogency, we may detect two common threads: It is God's fault if translations and copies of the Bible are incorrect; for God would have the power to preserve inerrancy in them.
It is God's fault if varying and/or incorrect interpretations of Biblical passages are made, because that shows that God did not make His message clear enough to us. The basic answer to these charges, which I have recently pointed out elsewhere, is that if anyone is to blame for the loss of clarity, etc. in the Bible over the ages, it is we who are to shoulder the blame for losing it. We can look at a few examples of how this is so, but first there is a certain practical consideration arguing against the very possibility of modern, inerrant copies; we will get to that in the next section.

A reader made the point here that while my paraphrases above "are probably correct for typical Skeptic rhetoric," a more intelligent version would be, "If God actually is concerned as to whether or not His 'words' from which not 'one jot or one tittle' (Matt. 5:18) will pass away, then doesn't the fact that this text fails to meet this standard tell us something about whether or not this God really does exist or is really who His word claims to be?"

In answer: Though Matt. 5:18 has often been used as a proof of inerrancy, I think it is rather an expression related to the Jewish idea of God's Word as preexistent, and unchanging and has nothing to do with copies on earth. One could mangle the Scriptures to death, but the original is still on file in the home office, so to speak. As an analogy, my prison inmates used to think that if they tore down the signs I posted rules on, that they could get away with breaking the rule; but the sign was not the authority -- I was!

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=201811#post201811)
Waterrock:

Greetings Gavin,

You asked how a Biblical Inerrantist defends the doctrine against the criticism that there are contradictions in the Bible.

A good statement of inerrancy is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm).


First, allow me to offer a simple definition of inerrancy: the doctrine of inerrancy = the teaching that God inspired the producers of the original text of the Bible to write exactly what He wanted them to write. Since God is truthful, He did not allow them, under His inspiration, to write what is not true.

:thumb: That's true. The Chicago Statement says:

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.


This does *not* mean that there are no copyist errors, or poor translations, or ambiguities in the text we have to work with nowadays.

That's true too. The Chicago Statement says:

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.


You mentioned Genesis. While many Christians will undoubtedly disagree with me, I believe that the best way to maintain the inerrancy of Genesis involves the following:
(a) interpreting Genesis 1 in a way that allows for the "Days" to be long periods of time,

Except that in effect denies biblical inerrancy in favor if inerrancy of man-made dating methods and is impossible in the Hebrew. As Hebrew scholar Gray Pilgrim points out at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=165376#post165376 :

As Claus Westermann and James Barr, neither of whom are known his evangelical leanings, both point out, the use of יום in Genesis 1 paired together with ויהי-ערב ויהי-בקר יום and then add a number is only used to refer to 24 hour days. Barr, whose career can be summed up as a methodological critic and is no friend of evangelical approaches, actually finds absurd anyone view of the text that does not find this to equal 7 24 hour days.


in which animal evolution occurs, and

Except that evolution from goo to you via the zoo is bunk. Also, the evolutionary order is hopelessly contrary to the order of Genesis. E.g. Genesis says that air and sea creatures were created before land creatures, but evolution says that both birds and whales evolved from land creatures.


(b) interpreting Noah's Flood as a local event, probably the inundation of the Black Sea Basin which occurred c. 5,600 B.C.

First, the Black Sea Flood is nothing at all like Noah's Flood -- see www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4168.asp

Second, many secular geologists now believe that the Black Sea didn't flood after all! See www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1211tj.asp

Let that be a lesson to you. If you try to marry the Bible with today's "science", you'll be widowed tomorrow, as you have to reinterpret your reinterpretations! See the pic below.


(and which the National Geographic Society has been researching for some time).

:lol: That should ring alarm bells automatically, since they also avidly pushed the Archaeoraptor hoax as prrof positive that dinosaurs evolved into birds :poke: See www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp


(c) recognizing that not all of the text was produced spontaneously by Moses; some parts (Gen. 14?) may have been earlier than him, and some parts (Gen. 36:9-43?) were added later, as supplements, by some other inspired author.

No problem there. I think Gen. 10:19 was written long before Moses and even Abraham, because it matter-of-factly gives Sodom as a landmark. It was long somewhere under the Dead Sea by Moses's time.

And indeed inerrancy allows for later editorial editions. A strong hint of that is "to this day" in Genesis 22:14, 32:32, Genesis 35:20. There is also no more problem with Joshua adding the account of Moses's death to the end of the Pentateuch than there is in my edition of Shakespeare mentioning his death.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 05:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202194#post202194)
Jaltus:
You literally contradict yourself on back to back posts. At least be consistent! This is insane, do you personally believe in the inerrancy of the autographs or not?!?! I feel lied to so far in this thread since you have now claimed A and Not A.
I literally do no such thing, Jaltus. You bold part of my quote and seem to intentionally ignore the rest of it. Here it is again, bolded differently.


First, I have made it clear repeatedly in this thread (not to mention elsewhere) that I and my ministry reject "inerrancy" because we -- and almost every Christian alive -- define it as inerrancy of existant manuscripts, and not the autographs.
In other words, with extraneous text edited out:

"I and my ministry reject "inerrancy" of existant (or existing) manuscripts and not the autographs."

If I somehow fell short in effectively communicating that, I apologize. I thought I was clear in stating this more than once. We believe the autographs were inerrant. But we recognize that the working definition of "inerrancy" among Christians is in regard to the Bible as it exists today, and as you yourself know, that is a totally untenable position. And it holds little or no practical value to hold to the inerrancy of the autographs, which we cannot see or touch or observe directly in any way, which puts this effectively in the same category as the Book of Mormon -- the "boy, you shoulda seen it" category.


Then why are you a Trinitarian? Are you even orthodox? Do you believe Christ is 100% man and 100% God? If you do not hold to that then you are NOT orthodox. If you do hold to it then you are creedal.
I am Trinitarian.

Orthodox? Which orthodox? According to whom?

Christ is 100% man and 100% God. Yes.

But that makes me neither orthodox or creedal or unorthodox or uncreedal. How many ways can I say this? Creeds and confessions have value in observing history, and potentially in examining arguments for one doctrine or another... but they are not authority on doctrine. The Bible is authority. Creeds and confessions may reflect scripture, or they may not... but they aren't divinely inspired scripture. To treat them as such is a form of idol worship that is committed by more people than I ever previously realized until recently.

When it comes to history, I may read these confessions and creeds as they become relevant in my various studies.

When it comes to authority on doctrine, I don't give a flying fig what the Westminster Confession or the Nicene Creed have to say about anything, whatsoever... even if I agree 99% or even 100% with what they say.

When it comes to authority on doctrine, I care about what the Bible says. To do otherwise is a form of idol worship.

I don't care if I'm "orthodox" according to one man-made definition or another. And I don't care if I'm "creedal."

I care if I'm Biblical.

[themuzicman]

OK, RI, now think about this for a minute:

While individual manuscripts have some problem with error, we have been able to reconstitute what was in the original to the point where any difficulties have no impact on the meaning or translation. There remain a couple of questions about whether certain passages have been added, but the portions that we know are original are accruate.

Thus, we can call the reconstituted greek text functionally inerrant. If you read through the more recent greek bibles, you just don't find differences significant enough to call them into question.

You are right in that the difference between the book of Mormon and the bible is infallibility. However, the issue of inerrancy keeps theologans and "teachers of the law" away from declaring certain portions as "errant" to fit the theology the wish to push on us, and keeps Christians from throwing out parts of the bible, because they don't like them.

If you look at the liberal denominations and theologans that don't adhere to inerrancy, they slowly drift towards licentiousness and the acceptance of sin as normal. See the Episcopal church if you want a clear cut example.

Inerrancy keeps the entirity of God's Word in bounds, and maintains the high standard that God's Word demands. Anything less and it becomes a religion of men.

Michael

[Jaltus]

RI,

Thanks for your latest post. Your syntax totally threw me off. I read your post 3 times to figure out what I was missing, finally gave up, and responded as I did.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Gavin,
I'd be interested to hear more about the texts and arguments your professor is using to challenge conservative doctrines in general and inerrancy in particular, if you've the inclination to post them. I'm sure folks here would generate some solid and specific replies, whether they are inerrantists or not....

[Gavin]

OK I probably need to be more specific. The primary challenges to Genesis are very general and vague and fairly weak - Genesis sounds like myth accounts from a primitive culture seeking to understand why things are the way they are, such as pain, different languages, rainbows, etc.,; there is textual and historical evidence that a number of different authors contributed to Genesis; modern scholars agree that it should be dated hundreds of years after Moses lived; Genesis 1:2 seems to deny creation ex nihilo; it is biologically impossible for people to live 900+ years; Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 offer two different creation accounts; the reason for the holiness of the sabbath day is different in Genesis 1 than it is in the ten commandments; yada yada yada yada. In these arguments he uses a lot of emotional appeals and bully pulpit, but he does not have any specific chapter and verse contradictions (to my knowledge). It is not his comments on Genesis per se that trouble me the most.

What I cannot really reply are his other points on Scripture in general. For example, the death of Judas in Matthew versus Acts.

And to be honest I have never heard a completely solid defense to the traditional problem of evil, which he uses at length. I do not believe the argument is valid but I am not sure I could specify exactly why.

I will try to remember and jot it down the next time he raises a specific contradiction.

Today our entire class time consisted of him going over the problem of evil, concluding that it was sound therefore justified atheism, noting that he and nearly all other people with advanced degrees in religious studies were atheists, and then dismissing class.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203390#post203390)
Gavin:

OK I probably need to be more specific. The primary challenges to Genesis are very general and vague and fairly weak -

Yep, that's typical of bigoted atheists.


Genesis sounds like myth accounts from a primitive culture seeking to understand why things are the way they are, such as pain, different languages, rainbows, etc.,;

So, as myth expert C.S. Lewis loved to ask liberal theologians, what are your qualifications in mythology? Genesis is very sober and nothing like the wacky myths of the near east.


there is textual and historical evidence that a number of different authors contributed to Genesis;

But these all predated Moses. See Did Moses really write Genesis? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3745.asp)

And the documentary hypothesis is bunk accepted as a faith commitment because of atheistic bias and uses blatantly circular reasoning -- see the documentation in Documentary hypothesis is in tatters, but unqualified atheists cling to it anyway (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=134063#post134063) and its sequel (www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=137326#post137326).

Gray Pilgrim showed how the DH was a product of its particular time and place at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=51111#post51111

Here is an answer to one of the alleged pillars of the DH: Change in divine name from Genesis 1 to 2 is due to change in emphasis (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=128465#post128465)


modern scholars agree that it should be dated hundreds of years after Moses lived;

Beware the "modern scholars agree" fallacy. Actually, as shown in the posts above, there are far too many very ancient features, and reflect a time long before the Israelites are in the land.


Genesis 1:2 seems to deny creation ex nihilo;

No, it was describing the state of the earth when it was originally created in Genesis 1:1. The waw disjunctive construction makes it clear it is a parenthetical statement not the next item in a time sequence.


it is biologically impossible for people to live 900+ years;

And is this pillock an expert in biology as well, e.g. the possible role of telomerase in prolonging cell division? See Living for 900 years (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp). Don't be afraid of profs who spruik forth outside their fields. :dunce:


Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 offer two different creation accounts;

Boring. See Creation Account, Times Two (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html).


the reason for the holiness of the sabbath day is different in Genesis 1 than it is in the ten commandments;

Why? Both mention God's creation. And who says there can't be more than one reason for a commandment.


yada yada yada yada. In these arguments he uses a lot of emotional appeals and bully pulpit, but he does not have any specific chapter and verse contradictions (to my knowledge).

Again typical. There's no one as illiberal as a liberal in power.


It is not his comments on Genesis per se that trouble me the most.

What I cannot really reply are his other points on Scripture in general. For example, the death of Judas in Matthew versus Acts.

He hasn't a clue. See the Tekton explanation http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html


And to be honest I have never heard a completely solid defense to the traditional problem of evil, which he uses at length. I do not believe the argument is valid but I am not sure I could specify exactly why.

It isn't, because the usual syllogism has a false premise, omitting a vital clause that a Christian would assert. That is, "An all-good and all-powerful God would get rid of all evil unless he had a good reason not to because of a greater good". If that premise is accepted, then an all-good and all-powerful God is compatible with evil in the world. It's up to the critic to show that there cannot possibly be a good reason.

This means there is no logical case to answer, and it's just an emotional argument from outrage.

Also, ask the critic to justify evil in the first place under his evolutionary framework. If we are just rearranged pond scum, then how can evil exist at all? His belief system undercuts his own premise.


I will try to remember and jot it down the next time he raises a specific contradiction.

Today our entire class time consisted of him going over the problem of evil, concluding that it was sound therefore justified atheism,

And missing the fact of a missing premise in the argument. These religious studies profs are so clueless. Actually, an evangelical friend who survived a Religious Studies degree told me that when he enrolled, he told the head of the dep't that he wanted to do a double major in philosophy as well. He said he thought would help a lot, and the head of the dep't said, "I wouldn't say that" :doh: He evidently didn't want someone trained in spotting logical fallacies to see the holes in liberal arguments large enough to drive a bus through.:whack:


... noting that he and nearly all other people with advanced degrees in religious studies were atheists, and then dismissing class.

Of course! That's because religious studies departments in secular universities are designed to attack biblical Christianity. They assume atheism to be true, at least for all practical purposes, so dismiss miracles a priori. So it would be a "miracle" if someone passing such a course was not an atheist. But note that they did not become atheists through scholarship; rather, their assumption of atheism was right from the start a presupposition before they even began their research. So, with "garbage in, garbage out", it's no wonder that their "scholarship" supported atheism.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 04:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=203390#post203390)
Gavin:

OK I probably need to be more specific. The primary challenges to Genesis are very general and vague and fairly weak - Genesis sounds like myth accounts from a primitive culture seeking to understand why things are the way they are, such as pain, different languages, rainbows, etc.,; there is textual and historical evidence that a number of different authors contributed to Genesis; modern scholars agree that it should be dated hundreds of years after Moses lived; Genesis 1:2 seems to deny creation ex nihilo; it is biologically impossible for people to live 900+ years; Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 offer two different creation accounts; the reason for the holiness of the sabbath day is different in Genesis 1 than it is in the ten commandments; yada yada yada yada. In these arguments he uses a lot of emotional appeals and bully pulpit, but he does not have any specific chapter and verse contradictions (to my knowledge). It is not his comments on Genesis per se that trouble me the most.

What I cannot really reply are his other points on Scripture in general. For example, the death of Judas in Matthew versus Acts.

And to be honest I have never heard a completely solid defense to the traditional problem of evil, which he uses at length. I do not believe the argument is valid but I am not sure I could specify exactly why.

I will try to remember and jot it down the next time he raises a specific contradiction.

Today our entire class time consisted of him going over the problem of evil, concluding that it was sound therefore justified atheism, noting that he and nearly all other people with advanced degrees in religious studies were atheists, and then dismissing class.


Gavin,

I had a good size reply to some of your questions but when I tried to upload a word document for you it erased by screen so here are some thoughts on evil by Dr. Greg Bahnsen. I go through intellectual struggles quite often unfortunately but God strengthens me everytime.

In Christ,
Blake

[Socrates]

This is also one more proof of the hypocrisy of the "new tolerance". If a Christian professor pushed his faith a tenth as much as this atheist professor is pushing his, there would be howls of protest against alleged religious bigotry and intolerance. But this atheist will be defended on the grounds of academic freedom.

See also this AiG article The tyranny of ‘tolerance’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v25n4_editorial.asp) for more examples, and how to expose the hypocrisy.

[Cuirly]

An interesting AiG Article Socrates (The Tyranny of ‘tolerance’ ). Especially the following excerpt:

“However, now the word <tolerance> has been redefined to ‘all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal.’ … The result is extreme intolerance towards Christianity from people who talk so much about tolerating all views. In short, they are intolerant of intolerance, so logically they should be intolerant of themselves!”

But using similar logic it could be stated: “Those intolerant of Hitler’s intolerance towards the Jews should logically be intolerant of themselves (and thereby of their own tolerance towards the Jewish Faith).” This may sound extreme but is only meant to illustrate a problem (via Reductio Ad Absurdum) with resorting to this “kind” of logic. Other than that there is no intent whatsoever to “link” anyone’s belief here to the Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust. (But why dos I feel I's gonna get smacked anyway!)

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206353#post206353)
Cuirly:

An interesting AiG Article Socrates (The Tyranny of ‘tolerance’ ). Especially the following excerpt:


However, now the word &lt;tolerance&gt; has been redefined to ‘all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles, all truth claims are equal.’ … The result is extreme intolerance towards Christianity from people who talk so much about tolerating all views. In short, they are intolerant of intolerance, so logically they should be intolerant of themselves!

But using similar logic it could be stated: “Those intolerant of Hitler’s intolerance towards the Jews should logically be intolerant of themselves (and thereby of their own tolerance towards the Jewish Faith).” This may sound extreme but is only meant to illustrate a problem (via Reductio Ad Absurdum) with resorting to this “kind” of logic. Other than that there is no intent whatsoever to “link” anyone’s belief here to the Nazi atrocities during the Holocaust. (But why dos I feel I's gonna get smacked anyway!)

Because it's so crass. :dufus: Hitler's problem was not intolerance in the sense that the article talks about, but genocide. :dunce: And it had nothing to do with the Jewish faith, but anyone of Jewish ethnicity. At least 250,000 Messianic Jews (Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah) were butchered, and atheistic Jews were butchered as well.

The article seemed to be showing up the absurdity of the whole modern tolerance putsch. Of course, we should be intolerant of anti-semitism precisely because it is evil, not one of many equally valid viewpoints.

[Cuirly]

"Because it's so crass. Hitler's problem was not intolerance in the sense that the article talks about, but genocide. And it had nothing to do with the Jewish faith, but anyone of Jewish ethnicity. At least 250,000 Messianic Jews (Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah) were butchered, and atheistic Jews were butchered as well.

The article seemed to be showing up the absurdity of the whole modern tolerance putsch. Of course, we should be intolerant of anti-semitism precisely because it is evil, not one of many equally valid viewpoints."

First let me lay the "red herring" part of Socrates' response to rest by
simply substituting the word "ethnicity" for "Faith" (though inferring the
fact that millions butchered were of the Jewish Faith "has nothing to do
with (it)" seems a bit extreme). The intent of my statement though (an "Ad
Falsum subset" of Reductio Ad Absurdum) remains totally unchanged.

The reason for it was to demonstrate the pitfalls of identifying illogical,
self-refuting and other "suicidal" arguments merely for their own sake.
They're usually so by merit of their "deductive structure" and not
necessarily by their content. The statement: "In short, they (professing
tolerance of all views) are intolerant of intolerance, so logically they
should be intolerant of themselves!" is an example. I merely "inputted" a
monstrously crass use of the word "intolerance" to obtain an equally
shocking result without changing the structure. Socrates rightfully objected
but on the grounds of my "input" and NOT on the statement's logical
configuration.

Finally referring to the "whole modern tolerance" as a "putsch" (absurd or
otherwise) infers an "meticulously organized anti-Christian plot" on a scale
far beyond mere individual intolerance. One would need extensive evidence to
support the existence of such an "intricate conspiracy".

"So I gets da last word, eh? Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk! [BONK!] Oowww! I didn't
thinks so."

[Socrates]

Today @ 12:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=208332#post208332)
Cuirly, replying to Socrates:


Because it's so crass. Hitler's problem was not intolerance in the sense that the article talks about, but genocide. And it had nothing to do with the Jewish faith, but anyone of Jewish ethnicity. At least 250,000 Messianic Jews (Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah) were butchered, and atheistic Jews were butchered as well.

The article seemed to be showing up the absurdity of the whole modern tolerance putsch. Of course, we should be intolerant of anti-semitism precisely because it is evil, not one of many equally valid viewpoints.

First let me lay the &quot;red herring&quot; part of Socrates' response to rest by simply substituting the word &quot;ethnicity&quot; for &quot;Faith&quot; (though inferring the fact that millions butchered were of the Jewish Faith &quot;has nothing to do with (it)&quot; seems a bit extreme).

Not at all. For Hitler, Jewish ethnicity was the criterion. It didn't matter whether they were Christian or atheist by religious persuasion.


The intent of my statement though (an &quot;Ad
Falsum subset&quot; of Reductio Ad Absurdum) remains totally unchanged.

Why even resort to Reductio Ad Absurdum if you think there is a problem identifying self-refuting statements?


The reason for it was to demonstrate the pitfalls of identifying illogical, self-refuting and other &quot;suicidal&quot; arguments merely for their own sake.

There is every good reason to do so. If an argument is self-refuting, there is no need to consider it further. The tolerance crowd is self refuting. Opposition to Hitler is not self-refuting.


They're usually so by merit of their &quot;deductive structure&quot; and not necessarily by their content. The statement: &quot;In short, they (professing tolerance of all views) are intolerant of intolerance, so logically they should be intolerant of themselves!&quot; is an example. I merely &quot;inputted&quot; a monstrously crass use of the word &quot;intolerance&quot; to obtain an equally shocking result without changing the structure. Socrates rightfully objected but on the grounds of my &quot;input&quot; and NOT on the statement's logical configuration.

Mainly because I pointed out that opposition to Hitler was not guilty of self-refutation. But there is no way of rescuing the modern tolerance movement from this problem.


Finally referring to the &quot;whole modern tolerance&quot; as a &quot;putsch&quot; (absurd or otherwise) infers an &quot;meticulously organized anti-Christian plot&quot; on a scale far beyond mere individual intolerance. One would need extensive evidence to support the existence of such an &quot;intricate conspiracy&quot;.

Who said anything abut any organised conspiracy? The fact remains that the tolerance crowd is anti-Christian by its very nature. Yet their arguments can be defeated by reductio ad absurdum.

[usarmy770]

The argument in its base form is actually kind of circular. We know that the Bible is inerrant because Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18 tell us so. We know that those verses are stating absolute facts because the Bible is inerrant. See where I'm getting at?

Question: How many of you inerrantists have eaten bacon? No. I'm not digressing. As all my Old Testament exegetes very well know, the book of Leviticus uses the same word (To'eivah: abomination) with reference to both male homosexual activities and the consumption of the flesh of the pig. Isn't it funny how Jerry Falwell (an outspoken inerrantist) attacks the producers of Teletubbies for having a "GAY" character (an absurd claim, but nevertheless) yet doesn't have a problem with Big Bird being a closet pork-eater? And by pork, I mean "flesh of the pig," not some sort of sexual innuendo.

Yes, I am aware of Jesus's saying about what goes into the mouth does not matter so much as what comes out of the mouth. That is not proof that eating ham is now officially permitted. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17 NRSV) When Jesus says "law," it is in reference to the Pentateuch.

Verbum sapienti satis.

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=214467#post214467)
usarmy770:

The argument in its base form is actually kind of circular. We know that the Bible is inerrant because Luke 16:17 and Matthew 5:18 tell us so. We know that those verses are stating absolute facts because the Bible is inerrant. See where I'm getting at?

Yep, that you ignored Post #4 on this thread which cited the post Breaking the Circle (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&amp;postid=83871#post83871), addressing this boring old canard.


Question: How many of you inerrantists have eaten bacon? No. I'm not digressing.

Question: How many of you errantists actually bother to read the conclusive answers on this site to such boring old canards, e.g. www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=37584#post37584 In short, the Mosaic Food laws were given to the Israelites up till the time of Christ's death, and are no longer operative today. But the prohibitions against proctogentical perversion predate Moses and are based on the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:24. Furthermore, the prohibitions are reaffirmed in the New Covenant while believers now have the freedom in Christ to eat any meat.


Jesus said, &quot;Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.&quot; (Matthew 5:17 NRSV) When Jesus says &quot;law,&quot; it is in reference to the Pentateuch.

That's right, and it was fulfilled in Himself. Similarly, the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of the virginal conception was fulfilled in Jesus, so it is no longer operative. If it had been abolished rather than fulfilled, no virginal conception would have occurred at all.