Important Doctrines and Inerrancy: An Axiom

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

Have you ever read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy?

It is a good place to begin the discussion, and it will show us what you agree with, and don't.

BTW If you read Kugel's cv, you will find that he is consistently on the liberal side of things,

Here is a quote from his home page, http://www.jameskugel.com/critic.php that explains how and why he deconstructs the Bible:

I have read the Chicago Statement and I don't agree that the bible is inerrant. While it may have been inspired, the message was to a certain people and meant something specific to them. I don't think we will ever truly know how they understood that message.

Likewise I don't think Kugel deconstructs the bible as much as he tackles the real issue of how the bible came to be. If you believe him to be liberal, then would you say you are conservative? If so, then I suspect we will probably not agree on much while discussing this issue, so it's up to you if you wish to continue the dialog.

 

[sentipente]

Almost right honor, the bread turns into the body and blood of Jesus.

I don't think honor will be reading your response.

 

[JohnT]

StormyOne

I believe in the five historic fundamentals, and yes, I am conservative. But no, I am not Fundamentalist, as the term has come to mean.

So let's begin there. Which of the other five historical fundamentals do you not accept?

Five Historic Biblical Fundamentals


1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing;
2) Christ's virgin birth and deity;
3) Christ's substitutionary atonement;
4) Christ's resurrection, and
5) Christ's personal pre-millennial and imminent second coming

 

[StormyOne]

StormyOne

I believe in the five historic fundamentals, and yes, I am conservative. But no, I am not Fundamentalist, as the term has come to mean.

So let's begin there. Which of the other five historical fundamentals do you not accept?

Five Historic Biblical Fundamentals


1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing;
2) Christ's virgin birth and deity;
3) Christ's substitutionary atonement;
4) Christ's resurrection, and
5) Christ's personal pre-millennial and imminent second coming

I don't agree with 1 and 3... the others I agree with for the most part but continue to explore them...

 

[sentipente]

1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing;

We don't have the original writings so this really means nothing.

 

[JohnT]

We don't have the original writings so this really means nothing.

It is true that the original writings of Moses and Paul do not exist, but that does not mean that they were not written exactly as God wanted them.

Nor does it mean that from the extant codices and papyrii etc, we are unable to ascertain the original words in the original languages.

 

[sentipente]

It is true that the original writings of Moses and Paul do not exist, but that does not mean that they were not written exactly as God wanted them.

Nor does it mean that from the extant codices and papyrii etc, we are unable to ascertain the original words in the original languages.

Why would God change his desire from the original to the copies? Why would He not want the copies to be written as He wanted them? If you believe in inerrant originals you must also believe in inerrant copies.

I have no idea what that last sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Divinely inspired, yes.
Inerrant, no.

Not in any absolutistic sense. It bes impossible. To be inerrant, not only would there have to be no human mind present as a component in the writing but there would likewise have to be no human mind present as a component in the reading and parsing of language. Say nothing of the complexities of translating language from an entirely different culture and time into cogent modern vernacular.

Though the OP does appear correct on one specific: the naive emotional and intellectual investment in inerrancy does make it far easier for one to become and remain an SDA. SDA conversion tools such as Daniel & Revelation prophecy seminars, catechize the potential convert immersively in the axiom of inerrancy and the paradigm derived therefrom in tandem with the peculiarly SDA flavoured elements layered on top and interwoven. Should our erstwhile new convert become so excited by "the message" that s/he desires nothing else in life more than to commit to a career of serving the denomination as a preacher or evangelist, and enter even the pre-seminary undergraduate levels of theology courses taught in SDA schools, cognitive dissonance immediately ensues because these classes soon disabuse him/her of the notion of inerrancy and lay bare the utter naivete of clinging to it in the face of such overwhelming historical and factual information to the contrary. Something as simple as the revelations of textual criticism or the discoveries of ancient manuscripts and their contents will bust an immediate cap in the behind of cozy theoretical inerrancy without pausing to blink.

Cognitive dissonance creates tremendous crises of upheaval emotionally and psychologically for a young person, particularly at such a sensitive time as embarking upon the adult world as college brings. It can stand discernment on its ear and lend the mask of the devil to the very face of God or His actual servants, while making those in the snakepit of legalism, pharisaism and the supposed "straight testimony" camp, who promise rescue from all this turmoil, seem like angels from on high when their "rescue" consists actually of administering poison brewed in the darkest pits of Hell. (Speaking strictly from personal experience at this point but hey whatever...)

 

[sentipente]

their "rescue" consists actually of administering poison brewed in the darkest pits of Hell. (Speaking strictly from personal experience at this point but hey whatever...)

So, which is it? Is hell a pit or does hell have pits?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

So, which is it? Is hell a pit or does hell have pits?

Hell bes a bowl of cherries. Swallowing the pits bes optional.

On a more serious note, since the Abyss can both swallow you as well as arise inside you to do so -- such that you bes dwellsy in it and it bes opensy inside you -- it would have to say HELL, conceived as a trans-dimensional location, definitely can both be a pit as well as contain pits.

 

[Sophia7]

Why would God change his desire from the original to the copies. Why would He not want the copies to be written as He wanted them. If you believe in inerrant originals you must also believe in inerrant copies.

That's why I can't accept the inerrancy view. If the autographs were inerrant, why wouldn't God have preserved the copies that way as well? Human error clearly crept in at some point in the process, either during the original writings or during transcription of the manuscripts, or both. That doesn't lessen my belief that the Bible was inspired by God.

 

[StormyOne]

That's why I can't accept the inerrancy view. If the autographs were inerrant, why wouldn't God have preserved the copies that way as well? Human error clearly crept in at some point in the process, either during the original writings or during transcription of the manuscripts, or both. That doesn't lessen my belief that the Bible was inspired by God.

not only error, but commentary.... that is the significant thing to me.... as copies were made commentary about the subject matter was added, and even moreso when as the writings were compiled.... while I do not deny the inspiration aspect, I think that there is alot of extra commentary that was not inspired per se....

 

[sentipente]

I happen to believe that all knowledge is inspired. Inspiration is not a grant of inerrancy or even truth as long as the human agent is involved.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

it happens to believe that part of why we needed Christ -- God come in the flesh -- bes exactly this issue: that humans bes constantly readsy them written word and getsy wrong severe. So it bes needsy to have an Incarnate Word as the final authority thereover and thereupon.

 

[Telaquapacky]

That's why I can't accept the inerrancy view. If the autographs were inerrant, why wouldn't God have preserved the copies that way as well? Human error clearly crept in at some point in the process, either during the original writings or during transcription of the manuscripts, or both. That doesn't lessen my belief that the Bible was inspired by God.

Are you saying that errors in a religious text do not necessarily mean it is not inspired? I'm not going anywhere with this, but you can see where some might be tempted to go with it.

Why the Bible has value to us may have less to do with whether it is inerrant or inspired, than with the fact that the motley crew of Christian bodies, for the most part have agreed to ascribe at least ostensibly, authority to the Bible.

 

[Sophia7]

Are you saying that errors in a religious text do not necessarily mean it is not inspired? I'm not going anywhere with this, but you can see where some might be tempted to go with it.

Why the Bible has value to us may have less to do with whether it is inerrant or inspired, than with the fact that the motley crew of Christian bodies, for the most part have agreed to ascribe at least ostensibly, authority to the Bible.

Do you see where some might be tempted to go with that? Adventists agree with the "motley crew of Christian bodies" (or at least Protestant bodies) on which books make up the canon and on ascribing authority to the Bible, but they take pride in disagreeing with the majority of Christians on things like the Sabbath, the IJ, EGW, the state of the dead, etc.

 

[Pythons]

Do you see where some might be tempted to go with that? Adventists agree with the "motley crew of Christian bodies" (or at least Protestant bodies) on which books make up the canon and on ascribing authority to the Bible, but they take pride in disagreeing with the majority of Christians on things like the Sabbath, the IJ, EGW, the state of the dead, etc.

This is what Sacred Tradition combined with Infallible teaching prevents.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

there bes no such thing as "infallible teaching" coming from any human mind.

 

[JohnT]

not only error, but commentary.... that is the significant thing to me.... as copies were made commentary about the subject matter was added, and even moreso when as the writings were compiled.... while I do not deny the inspiration aspect, I think that there is alot of extra commentary that was not inspired per se....

Stormy

What EXACTLY are you meaning with that?

Almost everyone knows about the Johannine Comma, and the last part of Mark not appearing in the earliest manuscripts. So what? They are not added commentaries, nor more importantly, they do not contradict anything else that is in the Bible. For example, the snake handling passage is clearly referenced to Paul's being bitten by a snake .

What you seem to be doing is making a Chinese Buffet from Scripture, using your subjective standards to ascertain what part of Scripture is trustworthy. Conversely, what is then wrong if another person says "I believe the Scriptures that Stormy rejects are authoritative" if he uses the same Chinese Buffet technique as you?

Do you see my point? I am trying to get you to see the need for objective standards. For example, what would you say about the fact that the references of Jesus and Paul to the OT come from the Septuagint (LXX) a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek in 270 BC? You have to keep in mind that neither Jesus nor Paul advocate as you do the Chinese Buffet approach to Scripture.

 

[sentipente]

JohnT, you may not admit but it is you who are using the method you accuse Stormy of. You decide what parts of the Scripture you will adhere but have no rationale for doing so.