Poll: The word of God is inerrant.

[NorrinRadd]

Your question was way too vague. Norman Geisler is not the topic of this thread. If there is a specific issue regarding inerrancy address it, not the person. Nick Peters issue with Geisler was specific. Ad hominem attacks means the one using that has nothing of substance to say.

I don't recall making any ad hom attacks.

Either one believes God and His written word is inerrant or one does not.

Without inerrancy in multiple concurrent areas, I don't believe it can matter.

[37818]

I don't recall making any ad hom attacks.

I did not say "you" did. Another in this thread did. I was making the added comment.

Without inerrancy in multiple concurrent areas, I don't believe it can matter.

What do you mean by "inerrancy in multiple concurrent areas?"
It is the word of God and God who is inerrant.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The only person I know who's met Norman Geisler face to face is .

Oh you know others. Myself and Rayado for instance.

[Apologiaphoenix]

All complaints against inerrancy of the Bible can be show to be matters of interpretation and/or translation and/or known textual matters. Do you know an exception?

Nope, but you need to let Geisler know about this since for him, disagreeing with an interpretation is denying inerrancy.

[Adrift]

On reflection, I was reading "affirm," but mentally seeing "assert." However, in the Geislerian Chicago Statements context, I believe my understanding of the term is justified. All three Statements present lists of explicit "affirmations" and "denials." Unless he explicitly stipulates otherwise, I believe we should apply the same sense when claiming Scripture "affirms" certain things.

Hmm. I don't really understand, but ok.

So it is specialized usage, not standard "U.S. English" usage.

? As far as I can tell it's still U.S. English.

Right. And my point is that ultimately inerrancy of the autographs is effectively moot. I happen to *like* the concept, but without concurrent inerrancy in works chosen as canonical, inerrancy of transmission, inerrancy of translation, inerrancy of interpretation, and inerrancy of application, it really doesn't matter. I don't happen to *like* that conclusion, but I don't see a way around it.

I don't know what any of this means, and as far as I can tell it's not at all what the Chicago Statement is trying to say. I don't know anyone who believes that translation, interpretation, or application is inerrant (except for maybe KJV-Onlyists), and in fact, the Statement itself suggests the opposite.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

[NorrinRadd]

I did not say "you" did. Another in this thread did. I was making the added comment.


What do you mean by "inerrancy in multiple concurrent areas?"
It is the word of God and God who is inerrant.

As I've noted in other posts, the idea of inerrancy of the autographs is irrelevant, given that (1) the autographs no longer exist, (2) it does not assure inerrancy of copies, (3) it does not insure inerrancy of translation, (4) it does not insure inerrancy of interpretation, and (5) it does not insure inerrancy of application.

Who cares if once upon a time there were error-free documents if their words were not perfectly preserved, disseminated, understood, and applied?

[Adrift]

As I've noted in other posts, the idea of inerrancy of the autographs is irrelevant, given that (1) the autographs no longer exist, (2) it does not assure inerrancy of copies, (3) it does not insure inerrancy of translation, (4) it does not insure inerrancy of interpretation, and (5) it does not insure inerrancy of application.

Who cares if once upon a time there were error-free documents if their words were not perfectly preserved, disseminated, understood, and applied?

I care. If there's a way that we can somehow come closer to understanding the original inspired author's intent, then I certainly want to know it. Even if our methods of getting there are themselves imperfect.

[Kbertsche]

As I've noted in other posts, the idea of inerrancy of the autographs is irrelevant, given that (1) the autographs no longer exist, (2) it does not assure inerrancy of copies, (3) it does not insure inerrancy of translation, (4) it does not insure inerrancy of interpretation, and (5) it does not insure inerrancy of application.

Who cares if once upon a time there were error-free documents if their words were not perfectly preserved, disseminated, understood, and applied?

Your points are valid. Even with inerrant original documents, we need to do the hard work of textual criticism, original language study, hermeneutics, etc. But I believe that if these things are done carefully and correctly, we can approximate the original documents.

But if the original documents were full of errors, what would be the point of trying to approximate the original documents? And what would inspiration of Scripture mean? Does God inspire error?

I think inerrancy of the original autographs is important and relevant. While it certainly does not guarantee correct interpretation or application, it facilitates it and makes it theoretically possible.

[shunyadragon]

All complaints against inerrancy of the Bible can be show to be matters of interpretation and/or translation and/or known textual matters. Do you know an exception?

By changing and manipulating the interpretation and/or translation, and/or known textural matters, you can make anything fit how you want it to suite what you believe. As a witness there are far too many differing claims of interpretation and many churches that do not agree.

To begin with Genesis is based on ancient myths and is in error as any form of consistent accurate history. It does fit anything we know about history of humanity and science.

[37818]

Nope, but you need to let Geisler know about this since for him, disagreeing with an interpretation is denying inerrancy.

Geisler cites Augustine on that matter, "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have misunderstood (Against Faustus, 11.5)"

[37818]

By changing and manipulating the interpretation and/or translation, and/or known textural matters, you can make anything fit how you want it to suite what you believe. As a witness there are far too many differing claims of interpretation and many churches that do not agree.

To begin with Genesis is based on ancient myths and is in error as any form of consistent accurate history. It does fit anything we know about history of humanity and science.

You are arguing the point. You did not cite any exception.

[37818]

Mike thinks the raising of the saints in Matthew 27 isn't literal but is an apocalyptic symbol of Matthew. . . .

Dr. Michael R. Licona wrote a defense of his view: When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical InerrancyHow I understand the text in question is in two parts. First, ". . . and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; . . ."

And the second part, ". . . and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

That account is unique to Matthew.





.

[Doug Shaver]

Is the written word of God inerrant when it was given by God?

No matter how many people believe one way or the other, it either is or isn't. And we either do or do not have good reasons to believe one way or the other.

[shunyadragon]

You are arguing the point. You did not cite any exception.

No need, all possible exceptions can be explained away by manipulation of the texts to suite ones belief.

I do not believe that Genesis can be explained as remotely inerrant nor infallible. Historically it is in error.

[shunyadragon]

Dr. Michael R. Licona wrote a defense of his view: When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical InerrancyHow I understand the text in question is in two parts. First, ". . . and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; . . ."

And the second part, ". . . and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

That account is unique to Matthew.





.

Here is an example of interpretation and manipulation of text to make the text comfortable with what one believes.

Classic; "Which I do not believe text says or means that."