Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

[tabibito]

In that case, the issue of whose interpretation is correct cannot be resolved until the issue of inerrancy is resolved. If you are an inerrantist, then you cannot defend your interpretation of scripture until you have defended your belief in inerrancy.

Credible defence of that belief is impossible.

[Doug Shaver]

Credible defence of that belief is impossible.

I don't know about impossible, but I've never seen one yet. And possibility is irrelevant if it hasn't happened.

[JonathanL]

Credible defence of that belief is impossible.

On the other hand, denial of that belief often seems to accompany a willingness to discard any teaching of Scripture that the denier finds uncomfortable.

[37818]

In that case, the issue of whose interpretation is correct cannot be resolved until the issue of inerrancy is resolved. If you are an inerrantist, then you cannot defend your interpretation of scripture until you have defended your belief in inerrancy.

Inerrancy has everything to do with God being inerrant and the written texts being identified as being God's word.

Inerrancy has to do with the original autographs of the text. Not discrepant interpretations, not discrepant translation and not know variants do to discrepant copying.

Now do you know of one exception that would actually disprove inerrancy? There are 100's of known claims. Pick one.

[Doug Shaver]

If you are an inerrantist, then you cannot defend your interpretation of scripture until you have defended your belief in inerrancy.

Inerrancy has everything to do with God being inerrant and the written texts being identified as being God's word.

That is an affirmation of inerrancy. It is not a defense of inerrancy.

Now do you know of one exception that would actually disprove inerrancy?

I don't need a disproof if I have no reason to believe it in the first place. I am not obliged to believe everything somebody tells me except when I can prove the contrary.

[Tassman]

Inerrancy has everything to do with God being inerrant and the written texts being identified as being God's word.

Who said that the texts are God's word, God's word?

Inerrancy has to do with the original autographs of the text. Not discrepant interpretations, not discrepant translation and not know variants do to discrepant copying.

This is the claim, but it's unsupported by any substantive evidence, it's a faith-belief.

[37818]

That is an affirmation of inerrancy. It is not a defense of inerrancy.

Because you say so?

I don't need a disproof if I have no reason to believe it in the first place. I am not obliged to believe everything somebody tells me except when I can prove the contrary.

That is because Biblical inerrancy has not been disproved. Denied by many, yes. Many claims.

Who said that the texts are God's word, God's word?

There is this book called, "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible," by B. B. Warfield, have you heard about it?

This is the claim, but it's unsupported by any substantive evidence, it's a faith-belief.

Really? Explain why you think that. Every book whether attributed to be from God or not has an original autograph. The origins of the Bible were hand copied books. But you know that. Didn't you?

[Tassman]

Because you say so?
That is because Biblical inerrancy has not been disproved. Denied by many, yes. Many claims.

More to the point Biblical inerrancy has never been proved.

Really? Explain why you think that. Every book whether attributed to be from God or not has an original autograph. The origins of the Bible were hand copied books. But you know that. Didn't you?

The question is why attribute any books to a deity?

[Kbertsche]

More to the point Biblical inerrancy has never been proved.

Neither has any scientific theory ever been proved (e.g. gravity, plate tectonics).
In theology, as in science, theories aren't proven. Rather, they are accepted if they survive disproof.

The question is why attribute any books to a deity?

Yes, that's the more fundamental question. As 37818 explained, inerrancy is just the logical consequence of divine inspiration.. The fundamental question is whether or not Scripture is divinely inspired.

[Doug Shaver]

Because you say so?

No, not for that reason.

[tabibito]

On the other hand, denial of that belief often seems to accompany a willingness to discard any teaching of Scripture that the denier finds uncomfortable.

Which teachings (as worded in Koine Greek) are you referring to? Or, if it is a teaching from translations, does it withstand being compared with the Koine Greek?
Even if that were the teaching, if even one instance of an error were demonstrated, that teaching would itself be an error.

[Tassman]

Neither has any scientific theory ever been proved (e.g. gravity, plate tectonics).
In theology, as in science, theories aren't proven. Rather, they are accepted if they survive disproof.

There’s no comparison between theology and science. The established scientific theories lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that they can be confidently acted upon as if they are true facts.

OTOH a theological assertion such as biblical inerrancy cannot be tested, merely accepted as an article of faith.

Yes, that's the more fundamental question. As 37818 explained, inerrancy is just the logical consequence of divine inspiration.. The fundamental question is whether or not Scripture is divinely inspired.

37818 explained nothing, merely asserted without substantive evidence, that scripture is inspired and inerrant.

[Kbertsche]

There’s no comparison between theology and science. The established scientific theories lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that they can be confidently acted upon as if they are true facts.

OTOH a theological assertion such as biblical inerrancy cannot be tested, merely accepted as an article of faith.

You have a very poor, incorrect understanding of theology, and possibly of science as well.

Theological claims are tested and validated against Scripture, analogous to how scientific claims are tested and validated against nature. The theological method is highly analogous to the scientific method. Augustine called theology "the queen of the sciences".

37818 explained nothing, merely asserted without substantive evidence, that scripture is inspired and inerrant.

Perhaps you missed it. He gave a short explanation of why inerrancy is a logical consequence of divine inspiration.

[Sparko]

There’s no comparison between theology and science. The established scientific theories lead to conclusions that have been multiply tested and validated to such a degree that they can be confidently acted upon as if they are true facts.

OTOH a theological assertion such as biblical inerrancy cannot be tested, merely accepted as an article of faith.



37818 explained nothing, merely asserted without substantive evidence, that scripture is inspired and inerrant.

show me how every historical event has been multiply tested and validated so it can be confidently acted upon as if they were true facts.

Tassy, historical events can't be tested and validated. They happened only once and all we have are the records, documents and archeological left behinds.

[Starlight]

show me how every historical event has been multiply tested and validated so it can be confidently acted upon as if they were true facts.

Tassy, historical events can't be tested and validated. They happened only once and all we have are the records, documents and archeological left behinds.

That's worth bearing in mind in general. History is not a reliable field like science is. Believe in it over-credulously at your own peril.