Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

    There is a petition being signed stating: “I affirm that the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text and is, therefore, inerrant in all that it affirms or denies on whatever topic it addresses.”
    21
    Yes.
    57.14%
    12
    No.
    42.86%
    9

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by 37818; 05-30-2016, 08:52 PM.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

  • #2
    Paging Nick:
    Despite this modern safeguard, in 2010, Dr. Mike Licona, an evangelical professor, wrote a book titled The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. In this book, he suggested that the account of the resurrected saints walking through the city might be “apocalyptic imagery” (Mat. 27:51-53). In other words, he suggested that the events did not actually happen, but that it was lore or legend. Subsequently, Licona resigned from his position with the Southern Baptists and at Southern Evangelical Seminary. What followed is rather alarming. Incredibly, some notable evangelical scholars began to express their support for Licona’s view, considering it consistent with a belief in inerrancy.

    Comment


    • #3
      I do not subscribe to this wooden type of inerrancy. I subscribe to inerrancy on salvific matters, as per the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by psstein View Post
        I do not subscribe to this wooden type of inerrancy. I subscribe to inerrancy on salvific matters, as per the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
        Then it logically would not be inerrant on salvific matters either. Inerrancy is not wooden.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          Define inerrancy. Inerrant by ancient standards or by modern standards? Because we are more OCD about precise details.
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • #6
            Jesus is the only inerrant Word of God.

            That said, I have numerous problems with the question.

            First, to claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God in its original texts is an idiotic claim. We don't have the original texts so it is an appeal to a standard that we'll never be able to verify. What truth claim could a person not make with that sort of wiggle room? I cannot think of one. The statement literally means absolutely nothing - it sounds like something is being said but in the end it is an admission that the text we currently posses isn't perfect.

            Second, even if our current copies had the official "Heaven's Press" watermark on each page who are we to have an perfect understanding of anything we read, much less ancient literature? We aren't only crossing east/west cultural barriers but nearly 2,000 years of history. I'm supposed to believe that some moron of a preacher waving around a 10lb. KJV has successfully crossed that divide - the same throwback who cannot change the oil on his 1980 Olds without help? Get out of here. In short, a perfectly made rifle in the hands of a wet brained alcoholic isn't going to make the wino a good shot, and likewise, a perfect book in the hands of a bigot is quite nearly worthless.

            Third, the claims made for the Bible set up very legalistic forms of Christianity that are very damaging to humanity - many here have lost their faith because they were taught a relationship with a book instead of a relationship with Christ.

            Fourth, if the Bible were absolutely perfect it would be out of place in our world. What? Creation is fallen, the Church is fallen, Christ appeared fallen - sinless yet hung out like a thief, the prophets were fallen - so we have all of Creation gets in on the salvation process and all of it is dirtied by the process, this toil and struggle, yet somehow a perfect book is injected into the scene right about the time man gets all rationalistic? Get out of here. It doesn't fit - these claims - instead, give me a book, divine in origin, yes, but with the fingerprints of humanity upon it.
            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

            Comment


            • #7
              Normally I don't speak outside of the inter-varsity, but I'll make an exception here. Let's look at the statement in question.

              “I affirm that the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text and is, therefore, inerrant in all that it affirms or denies on whatever topic it addresses.”

              I suspect this is Geisler's petition that he put up. Well Craig Blomberg and myself both went and signed the petition because we can agree to it. When we went back and checked, our signatures had been removed.

              Geisler is not the Pope of Inerrancy and he is speaking out of his area on these kinds of topics. It's becoming more and more of an embarrassment to watch this kind of thing. Myself and JPH have written more on this whole debacle than anyone else, including our Ebook on the topic.

              I've been trying to find the pictures of what happened. They might have been saved on my old computer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                Jesus is the only inerrant Word of God.

                That said, I have numerous problems with the question.

                First, to claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God in its original texts is an idiotic claim. We don't have the original texts so it is an appeal to a standard that we'll never be able to verify. What truth claim could a person not make with that sort of wiggle room? I cannot think of one. The statement literally means absolutely nothing - it sounds like something is being said but in the end it is an admission that the text we currently posses isn't perfect.

                Second, even if our current copies had the official "Heaven's Press" watermark on each page who are we to have an perfect understanding of anything we read, much less ancient literature? We aren't only crossing east/west cultural barriers but nearly 2,000 years of history. I'm supposed to believe that some moron of a preacher waving around a 10lb. KJV has successfully crossed that divide - the same throwback who cannot change the oil on his 1980 Olds without help? Get out of here. In short, a perfectly made rifle in the hands of a wet brained alcoholic isn't going to make the wino a good shot, and likewise, a perfect book in the hands of a bigot is quite nearly worthless.

                Third, the claims made for the Bible set up very legalistic forms of Christianity that are very damaging to humanity - many here have lost their faith because they were taught a relationship with a book instead of a relationship with Christ.

                Fourth, if the Bible were absolutely perfect it would be out of place in our world. What? Creation is fallen, the Church is fallen, Christ appeared fallen - sinless yet hung out like a thief, the prophets were fallen - so we have all of Creation gets in on the salvation process and all of it is dirtied by the process, this toil and struggle, yet somehow a perfect book is injected into the scene right about the time man gets all rationalistic? Get out of here. It doesn't fit - these claims - instead, give me a book, divine in origin, yes, but with the fingerprints of humanity upon it.
                Sounds like you're railing against a strawman version of inerrancy that no one but maybe King James Onlyists subscribe to. Most inerrantists that I know of subscribe to something similar to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which absolutely recognizes the fingerprints of humanity on scripture, and I don't know of any inerrantists (again, outside of, perhaps, KJV-Onlyists) who assert that even with a perfectly preserved copy of the original autographs that one could forego a healthy hermeneutic that includes understanding things like hyperbole, figures of speech, style of writing, cultural context and conventions, genre, and the like. And yes, saying that we don't have the original texts absolutely is saying that the current text isn't perfect. That's the point, and the reason inerrantists accept the need for exegetical tools like textual criticism. Personally, I like WLC's short definition of Biblical inerrancy, "The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is literally true. It doesn’t mean that everything the Bible says is true. What inerrancy properly understood means is that everything that the Bible teaches is true, or that everything that the Bible affirms to be true is true." I think it's also important to point out that Biblical inerrancy is not synonymous with sola scriptura. The two sometimes seem conflated, when they're not. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, in the end, is about recognizing the authority of God's message to us. Recognizing that authority does not, in any way, undermine the authority of the Word made Flesh. Quite the opposite, recognizing that the Bible's authority further confirms the living Word's authority. And, if you don't accept the doctrine of inerrancy, well then, that's okay by me. You're still my brother/sister in Christ.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Sounds like you're railing against a strawman version of inerrancy that no one but maybe King James Onlyists subscribe to. Most inerrantists that I know of subscribe to something similar to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which absolutely recognizes the fingerprints of humanity on scripture, and I don't know of any inerrantists (again, outside of, perhaps, KJV-Onlyists) who assert that even with a perfectly preserved copy of the original autographs that one could forego a healthy hermeneutic that includes understanding things like hyperbole, figures of speech, style of writing, cultural context and conventions, genre, and the like. And yes, saying that we don't have the original texts absolutely is saying that the current text isn't perfect. That's the point, and the reason inerrantists accept the need for exegetical tools like textual criticism. Personally, I like WLC's short definition of Biblical inerrancy, "The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is literally true. It doesn’t mean that everything the Bible says is true. What inerrancy properly understood means is that everything that the Bible teaches is true, or that everything that the Bible affirms to be true is true." I think it's also important to point out that Biblical inerrancy is not synonymous with sola scriptura. The two sometimes seem conflated, when they're not. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, in the end, is about recognizing the authority of God's message to us. Recognizing that authority does not, in any way, undermine the authority of the Word made Flesh. Quite the opposite, recognizing that the Bible's authority further confirms the living Word's authority. And, if you don't accept the doctrine of inerrancy, well then, that's okay by me. You're still my brother/sister in Christ.
                  Agreed! Some people *cough*Geisler*cough* seem to think you have to hold to their picky form of inerrancy to be a Christian.
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think I've expressed inerrancy as it is understood for a vast majority of Christians.
                    I appreciate the distinctions that scholars make but is this the sort of thing that is taught from the pulpit?

                    If you'd like to know what really makes Meh Gerbil angry it is the tendency of humanity to constantly attempt to place people/objects between the believer and Jesus Christ. From one branch of Christianity with its ridiculous icons and religious sites to another branch with priests and popes to yet another branch with Bibles and other paraphernalia it seems we're beset on every side by people uncomfortable with sola Jesus Christ. I've seen the Bible used in that way for years in different churches across the country.

                    I understand that you don't hold some of those views, but again, how many Christians do you know that have a nuanced view of Biblical inerrancy?

                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    "The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is literally true. It doesn’t mean that everything the Bible says is true. What inerrancy properly understood means is that everything that the Bible teaches is true, or that everything that the Bible affirms to be true is true."
                    Some scholars hold that the mark of the beast '666' portion of Revelation is a later addition and not written by John (1).
                    Assuming that is the case what does the assertion 'Everything the Bible says is true' mean?
                    Is the teaching that the beast will emerge and his number will be '666' true?

                    What does the statement mean for our Christian brothers who believe evolution to be true?
                    If every time we hit a difficulty it is waved aside as a parable or allegory or whatever then the statement "it is all true" doesn't really mean much.

                    My problem with the obvious idolatry of the Bible is that your statement "everything is true" sounds really nice on the surface but practically speaking it is unsustainable and it leaves people open to some pretty vicious attacks that often result in deconversions. I think we are wholly dependent upon the Holy Spirit in these matters and somehow I think hard and fast statements get in the way of His work - the faith is directed at a book and not God.

                    Again, I know you're beyond most of that so don't read any of this as an attack on you personally.



                    NOTES
                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1: John is pretty vague throughout the book so the sudden inclusion of something so specific is odd.
                    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                      I think I've expressed inerrancy as it is understood for a vast majority of Christians.
                      I appreciate the distinctions that scholars make but is this the sort of thing that is taught from the pulpit?

                      If you'd like to know what really makes Meh Gerbil angry it is the tendency of humanity to constantly attempt to place people/objects between the believer and Jesus Christ. From one branch of Christianity with its ridiculous icons and religious sites to another branch with priests and popes to yet another branch with Bibles and other paraphernalia it seems we're beset on every side by people uncomfortable with sola Jesus Christ. I've seen the Bible used in that way for years in different churches across the country.

                      I understand that you don't hold some of those views, but again, how many Christians do you know that have a nuanced view of Biblical inerrancy?
                      Well then your issue isn't really with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy so much as it is with the lack of proper education of lay people on a more popular level (and certain Church traditions as practiced by certain groups altogether).


                      Some scholars hold that the mark of the beast '666' portion of Revelation is a later addition and not written by John (1).
                      Assuming that is the case what does the assertion 'Everything the Bible says is true' mean?
                      Is the teaching that the beast will emerge and his number will be '666' true?

                      What does the statement mean for our Christian brothers who believe evolution to be true?
                      If every time we hit a difficulty it is waved aside as a parable or allegory or whatever then the statement "it is all true" doesn't really mean much.

                      My problem with the obvious idolatry of the Bible is that your statement "everything is true" sounds really nice on the surface but practically speaking it is unsustainable and it leaves people open to some pretty vicious attacks that often result in deconversions. I think we are wholly dependent upon the Holy Spirit in these matters and somehow I think hard and fast statements get in the way of His work - the faith is directed at a book and not God.

                      Again, I know you're beyond most of that so don't read any of this as an attack on you personally.



                      NOTES
                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1: John is pretty vague throughout the book so the sudden inclusion of something so specific is odd.
                      I'm not familiar with the view that the number of the beast is an interpolation, though I am familiar with the variant version (616). At any rate, determining whether or not a passage is an interpolation is where proper exegetical disciplines come into play, which those who hold to Biblical inerrancy have no problem with. Using those disciplines doesn't at all effect the proposition "Everything that the Bible teaches is true, or that everything that the Bible affirms to be true is true." Nor does accepting the doctrine of inerrancy ensure that all Christians everywhere will be on the same page about what is true. The doctrine of inerrancy was never intended (as far as I know) to get everyone on the same page about what is true, only agreement that what the Bible teaches is true, is true.

                      Your second issue concerning what the statement means for those who believe in evolution has more to do with Biblical literalism than it does Biblical Inerrancy (as far as I see it anyways). One can accept inerrancy without accepting literalism, and technically I suppose, one can accept literalism without accepting inerrancy. Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to assume that those who accept inerrancy or literalism cannot accept evolution. I, personally, accept both inerrancy and literalism, and also accept Old Earth creationism and evolution.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Meh Gerbil, that fact that large numbers of folks do not understand something does not make it untrue.

                        Thus the fact that large numbers of Christians do not understand what inerrancy really is does not make inerrancy untrue.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                          Jesus is the only inerrant Word of God.

                          That said, I have numerous problems with the question.

                          First, to claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God in its original texts is an idiotic claim. We don't have the original texts so it is an appeal to a standard that we'll never be able to verify. What truth claim could a person not make with that sort of wiggle room? I cannot think of one. The statement literally means absolutely nothing - it sounds like something is being said but in the end it is an admission that the text we currently posses isn't perfect.

                          Second, even if our current copies had the official "Heaven's Press" watermark on each page who are we to have an perfect understanding of anything we read, much less ancient literature? We aren't only crossing east/west cultural barriers but nearly 2,000 years of history. I'm supposed to believe that some moron of a preacher waving around a 10lb. KJV has successfully crossed that divide - the same throwback who cannot change the oil on his 1980 Olds without help? Get out of here. In short, a perfectly made rifle in the hands of a wet brained alcoholic isn't going to make the wino a good shot, and likewise, a perfect book in the hands of a bigot is quite nearly worthless.

                          Third, the claims made for the Bible set up very legalistic forms of Christianity that are very damaging to humanity - many here have lost their faith because they were taught a relationship with a book instead of a relationship with Christ.

                          Fourth, if the Bible were absolutely perfect it would be out of place in our world. What? Creation is fallen, the Church is fallen, Christ appeared fallen - sinless yet hung out like a thief, the prophets were fallen - so we have all of Creation gets in on the salvation process and all of it is dirtied by the process, this toil and struggle, yet somehow a perfect book is injected into the scene right about the time man gets all rationalistic? Get out of here. It doesn't fit - these claims - instead, give me a book, divine in origin, yes, but with the fingerprints of humanity upon it.
                          Just curious, do you favor the concept of the Bible being infallible rather than inerrant?

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Just curious, do you favor the concept of the Bible being infallible rather than inerrant?
                            You'd probably have to define both of those terms (they seem a little plastic) before I could give a meaningful answer.
                            I believe the Bible is a reliable record of the life of Jesus Christ (and others) and that is accurately reflects early Christian teaching.

                            I'd put it on the same level as the Holy Spirit, the Church, and Creation as a vehicle of bringing salvation truth to men.
                            I've a tendency to be critical of the Church and the Bible because they've both been used in very abusive ways in my life (1).

                            If I could duct tape a large Bible to a baseball bat and beat a dozen preachers to death with it I think I'd be a much happier person.






                            NOTES
                            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            1: None of that was the fault of the Bible.
                            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                              You'd probably have to define both of those terms (they seem a little plastic) before I could give a meaningful answer.
                              I believe the Bible is a reliable record of the life of Jesus Christ (and others) and that is accurately reflects early Christian teaching.

                              I'd put it on the same level as the Holy Spirit, the Church, and Creation as a vehicle of bringing salvation truth to men.
                              I've a tendency to be critical of the Church and the Bible because they've both been used in very abusive ways in my life (1).

                              If I could duct tape a large Bible to a baseball bat and beat a dozen preachers to death with it I think I'd be a much happier person.






                              NOTES
                              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              1: None of that was the fault of the Bible.
                              Kinda figured I would since some folks use them interchangeably.

                              Inerrancy traditionally means there are no errors whatsoever

                              Some think that infallible means not only without error but also incapable of error although the RCC seems to define infallible as being along the lines of "immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church." For purposes of this thread let's go with something closer to the latter definition of infallible.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              14 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X