Uhm...I thought it would be assumed the question is with all other things held constant, particulary when it was Juvenism who claimed that a person who accepts the bible contains errors has a smaller faith than one who doesn't. I understood he meant with all other things held constant, but I guess that point alluded you?
Yes. ALl other things being equal. Less faith. But, the very idea of all other things being equal makes the question close to meaningless in an ultimate sense.
Sure it can be reconciled, I even provided a reconciliation in my OP. Juvenism later comments reveal why some believers will accept that the specious reconciliation that I proposed is correct, over accepting that there is a discrepancy in the two accounts.
"Specious" is a bold word.
The thing he values most in life, his faith, is built on it. And without inerrancy his house falls apart. Juvenism agreed that his view can be summed up as: "If the bible is not inerrant I would lose my faith, because my faith would become useless."
Is this true for you as well Busterdog?
Well, if there were no God, I guess I would lose my faith as well. Can I conceive of the possibility? I don't know that I can. How equivalent is this to loss of faith in the Word? It is so important to my walk, I don't know what I would do without it. Could I survive and find faith after a nuclear attack on New York? I suppose I might, but I don't know how.
The most essential belief would be the resurrection and coming of Christ in the flesh. This other stuff is less essential, but it is hard to imagine how it is not all part of the whole.
If so, do you think this should be the position expounded on by Churches, taught to younger generations, that if you accept that the bible is not inerrant your faith is meaningless, because all of it is useless. DO you believe that they all should be taught to build there faith on inerrancy as Juvenism faith is, that if innerrancy fails their house should fall apart?
I am not all that up on the history. I say yes, teach inerrancy. But, teach the essential confession is distinct. It is the person of Christ and his resurrection. I would teach that the former flows from the latter. But I would teach that the two are distinct.
And my final question to you is.
Which person (with all other things held constant) reveals a stronger faith.
The persons who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you remains, even if the Bible is not inerrant.
Or the person who says (and believes), "Lord my faith in you will not remain, it will be lost if the Bible is not inerrant."
One would have to say the former, since it assumes the essential inerrant statement, that "I believe what you testify about yourself -- the resurrection and that you came in the flesh."
To be equal, what else must follow?
Jhn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
That being said, we inexorably travel down the inerrant road, if we believe in the inerrant position. So, either way that your question is posed, the inerrant believer must assume that that inerrant position is valid. But, it puts the simplest Rom. 10 confession first.
As I see it, no matter which you confession you start with, the voice of God remains and calls you to an inerrant belief in the Word (as originally spoken, and apart from translational issues, which demonstrably, though perhaps only slightly corrupt.). So, I will concede your point on the question you pose, but I cannot separate it from an inerrant Word.
I didn't draw any "sweeping" conclusions. In fact Juvenism confirmed them.
OK. I confused you with the prevailing liberal academic view.