Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

[OzSpen]

We don't have the originals, only many copies of copies of copies.

And, the vast majority of scholars agree, there are errors in the copies.

bhs,

Dr Metzger died in 2007 at the age of 93 (Wikipedia). He was one of the world's most eminent examiners/critics of the Greek text of the NT in the 20th century. His book, last revised in 1992, The Text of the New Testament, has a chapter and many other details on 'The practice of New Testament textual criticism' (Metzger 1992:207ff).

One of his conclusions is:

'Let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no none group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual dou8bt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known' (Metzger 1992:246).​

However, there is another part of the story. One of the editors of the RSV of 1946, F C Grant, wrote,'It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946 [when the RSV was published], as in 1881 [ASV publication] and 1901 [RV publication], no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine' (Grant 1946:42).

F F Bruce's comment on this statement is:

'If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice. [The 20th century] has seen no greater authority in this field of New Testament textual criticism than Sir Frederick Kenyon, who died in August 1952, and we may take his words to heart in confidence: "It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable word of God" [Kenyon 1936:144]. And again: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established [Kenyon 1940:228ff] (Bruce 1963:189-190).
​

You have stated that we don't have the originals and that is a true statement. If we don't have the originals, is it pointless to talk about the inerrancy of documents we do not have? I do not think so. I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

“Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it” (Harris 1969:88-89).​

Oz

Works consulted
Bruce, F F 1963. The books and the parchments: Some chapters on the transmission of the Bible, rev ed. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.


Grant, F C 1946. The Greek text of the New Testament, in An introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, 37-42. New York: International Council of Religious Education.


Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Metzger, B M 1992. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 3rd ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

[americanvet]

The Bible is accurate for what it is. It is not accurate for what is is not.

It is (in my opinion) the set of spiritual instructions from God to mankind. Even within this narrow scope there is still many variations as to what the instructions say. We should not try to focus on the parts we disagree on but instead focus on the parts we agree on.

 

[OzSpen]

The Bible is accurate for what it is. It is not accurate for what is is not.

It is (in my opinion) the set of spiritual instructions from God to mankind. Even within this narrow scope there is still many variations as to what the instructions say. We should not try to focus on the parts we disagree on but instead focus on the parts we agree on.

I'm pleased that you stated that this was your opinion because it does not match the facts. Here's some evidence to confute what you stated:

Evangelical theologian, Dr Wayne Grudem, knows the Scriptures well and he refutes your perspective with this evidence:

In this section we examine the major objections that are commonly made against the concept of inerrancy.

1. The Bible Is Only Authoritative for “Faith and Practice.” One of the most frequent objections is raised by those who say that the purpose of Scripture is to teach us in areas that concern “faith and practice” only; that is, in areas that directly relate to our religious faith or to our ethical conduct. This position would allow for the possibility of false statements in Scripture, for example, in other areas such as in minor historical details or scientific facts—these areas, it is said, do not concern the purpose of the Bible, which is to instruct us in what we should believe and how we are to live. Its advocates often prefer to say that the Bible is “infallible” but they hesitate to use the word inerrant.

The response to this objection can be stated as follows: the Bible repeatedly affirms that all of Scripture is profitable for us (2 Tim. 3:16) and that all of it is “God- breathed.” Thus it is completely pure (Ps. 12:6), perfect (Ps. 119:96), and true (Prov. 30:5). The Bible itself does not make any restriction on the kinds of subjects to which it speaks truthfully.

The New Testament contains further affirmations of the reliability of all parts of Scripture: in Acts 24:14, Paul says that he worships God, “believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets.” In Luke 24:25, Jesus says that the disciples are “foolish men” because they are “slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” In Romans 15:4, Paul says that “whatever was written” in the Old Testament was “written for our instruction.” These texts give no indication that there is any part of Scripture that is not to be trusted or relied on completely. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul can refer even to minor historical details in the Old Testament (sitting down to eat and drink, rising up to dance) and can say both that they “happened” (thus implying historical reliability) and “were written down for our instruction.”

If we begin to examine the way in which the New Testament authors trust the smallest historical details of the Old Testament narrative, we see no intention to separate out matters of "faith and practice," or to say that this is somehow a recognizable category of affirmations, or to imply that statements not in that category need not be trusted or thought to be inerrant. Rather, it seems that the New Testament authors are willing to cite and affirm as true every detail of the Old Testament (Grudem1994:93).​

Therefore, the Bible confirms that not only matters of Judeo-Christian faith and practice are affirmed as inerrant in Scripture, but this perfection in the original documents extends to all details in Scripture. Even the citing of error and unrighteousness is truthful in its accuracy.

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[fatboys]

bhs,

View attachment 162010

Dr Metzger died in 2007 at the age of 93 (Wikipedia). He was one of the world's most eminent examiners/critics of the Greek text of the NT in the 20th century. His book, last revised in 1992, The Text of the New Testament, has a chapter and many other details on 'The practice of New Testament textual criticism' (Metzger 1992:207ff).

One of his conclusions is:

'Let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no none group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual dou8bt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known' (Metzger 1992:246).​

However, there is another part of the story. One of the editors of the RSV of 1946, F C Grant, wrote,'It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946 [when the RSV was published], as in 1881 [ASV publication] and 1901 [RV publication], no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine' (Grant 1946:42).

F F Bruce's comment on this statement is:

'If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice. [The 20th century] has seen no greater authority in this field of New Testament textual criticism than Sir Frederick Kenyon, who died in August 1952, and we may take his words to heart in confidence: "It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable word of God" [Kenyon 1936:144]. And again: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established [Kenyon 1940:228ff] (Bruce 1963:189-190).
​

You have stated that we don't have the originals and that is a true statement. If we don't have the originals, is it pointless to talk about the inerrancy of documents we do not have? I do not think so. I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

“Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it” (Harris 1969:88-89).​

Oz

Works consulted
Bruce, F F 1963. The books and the parchments: Some chapters on the transmission of the Bible, rev ed. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.


Grant, F C 1946. The Greek text of the New Testament, in An introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, 37-42. New York: International Council of Religious Education.


Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Metzger, B M 1992. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 3rd ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This does not mean there are not errors. It means that many of the teachings came through. It does not mean that they came through unscathed. Every word translated is not "God breathed". Believers can take what they want to believe and leave out what they don't like or do not understand.

 

[drstevej]

Inerrancy pertains to the original mss not translations, FB. We do not put rocks in a hat and claim perfection.

 

[bhsmte]

bhs,

View attachment 162010

Dr Metzger died in 2007 at the age of 93 (Wikipedia). He was one of the world's most eminent examiners/critics of the Greek text of the NT in the 20th century. His book, last revised in 1992, The Text of the New Testament, has a chapter and many other details on 'The practice of New Testament textual criticism' (Metzger 1992:207ff).

One of his conclusions is:

'Let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no none group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual dou8bt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known' (Metzger 1992:246).​

However, there is another part of the story. One of the editors of the RSV of 1946, F C Grant, wrote,'It will be obvious to the careful reader that still in 1946 [when the RSV was published], as in 1881 [ASV publication] and 1901 [RV publication], no doctrine of the Christian faith has been affected by the revision, for the simple reason that, out of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, none has turned up thus far that requires a revision of Christian doctrine' (Grant 1946:42).

F F Bruce's comment on this statement is:

'If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice. [The 20th century] has seen no greater authority in this field of New Testament textual criticism than Sir Frederick Kenyon, who died in August 1952, and we may take his words to heart in confidence: "It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable word of God" [Kenyon 1936:144]. And again: "The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established [Kenyon 1940:228ff] (Bruce 1963:189-190).
​

You have stated that we don't have the originals and that is a true statement. If we don't have the originals, is it pointless to talk about the inerrancy of documents we do not have? I do not think so. I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

“Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it” (Harris 1969:88-89).​

Oz

Works consulted
Bruce, F F 1963. The books and the parchments: Some chapters on the transmission of the Bible, rev ed. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.


Grant, F C 1946. The Greek text of the New Testament, in An introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, 37-42. New York: International Council of Religious Education.


Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Metzger, B M 1992. The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 3rd ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

I have read the works of many NT scholars and historians including Metzger and someone who trained under him, who also has impecable credentials; Bart Ehrman.

It is true, even though we only have copies upon copies upon copies, the accuracy of the actual words, is likely around 95-98% from the originals and this is agreed upon amongst most NT scholars.

They also agree some stories were added much later and some stories were edited much later, that were never found in the earlier copies of the gospels.

Lastly, determining whether subsequent copies are highly accurate in regards to the words, is completely different, from determining whether the words, portray any level of historical credibility. Man can write and copy anything in stories, determining whether these stories are historically credible, is where the historical method comes into play. When the historical method is applied critically, most NT historians will conclude; the NT is much more a work of theology, than it is a work of credible history.

The above is why, it requires faith to believe the stories.

 

[1213]

...Why do people believe it is perfect?

I think it is perfect, because I have no good and truthful reason to say otherwise.

--------

The topic “What would falsify creationism?” was not open anymore, but I would like all here to know answer to that question, therefore I add the answer to here, even though this is slightly of topic. I hope you don’t mind.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=August_12_2015
“Just as the title says. What evidence could show that creationism was wrong?”

The answer is. If we would have evidence that shows that no rudiment exist or have existed that could falsify the idea that in the beginning God created and all was good.

Obviously evidence that could disprove creation can’t exist, because creation is truth, so this is pointless.

 

[OzSpen]

This does not mean there are not errors. It means that many of the teachings came through. It does not mean that they came through unscathed. Every word translated is not "God breathed". Believers can take what they want to believe and leave out what they don't like or do not understand.

You have not demonstrated your premises. You have given us your presuppositions that need to be tested (and a short thread like this is hardly the place to do it). Your presuppositions emerge from this statement:

• The Bible contains errors;
• Many Bible teachings came through in spite of errors;
• These teachings have been affected (i.e. not unscathed) by the errors in the text;
• 'God breathed' does not apply to every word of the Bible;
• Believers can pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible.

These presuppositions need to be tested for verification or falsification from the biblical text because you are talking about 'the Bible'.

However, your presuppositions do seem to have some dimensions of a doubting, skeptical worldview.

Oz

 

[Zoness]

That's a false accusation. I'm very interested in discussion, but when you put down a church that believes in literal interpretation and then want me to read your post with a literal understanding, I find that to be a contradictory perspective.

Where did I put down a church? Be very specific.

 

[OzSpen]

Where did I put down a church? Be very specific.

Please go back to #85 where you stated:

I've been in a variety of churches who require an infallible, literal acceptance of the Bible and then others that are in more of an inspired, less literal camp. The less literal camp appeared to make more sense if one is evaluating the Bible as a description of everything in the world. The more literal interpretation loses me on it's history and scientific aspects.

You state that the more literal interpretation loses you on its history and scientific aspects. What is that if it is not a denigration, a put down?

 

[americanvet]

I'm pleased that you stated that this was your opinion because it does not match the facts. Here's some evidence to confute what you stated:

Evangelical theologian, Dr Wayne Grudem, knows the Scriptures well and he refutes your perspective with this evidence:

In this section we examine the major objections that are commonly made against the concept of inerrancy.

1. The Bible Is Only Authoritative for “Faith and Practice.” One of the most frequent objections is raised by those who say that the purpose of Scripture is to teach us in areas that concern “faith and practice” only; that is, in areas that directly relate to our religious faith or to our ethical conduct. This position would allow for the possibility of false statements in Scripture, for example, in other areas such as in minor historical details or scientific facts—these areas, it is said, do not concern the purpose of the Bible, which is to instruct us in what we should believe and how we are to live. Its advocates often prefer to say that the Bible is “infallible” but they hesitate to use the word inerrant.

The response to this objection can be stated as follows: the Bible repeatedly affirms that all of Scripture is profitable for us (2 Tim. 3:16) and that all of it is “God- breathed.” Thus it is completely pure (Ps. 12:6), perfect (Ps. 119:96), and true (Prov. 30:5). The Bible itself does not make any restriction on the kinds of subjects to which it speaks truthfully.

The New Testament contains further affirmations of the reliability of all parts of Scripture: in Acts 24:14, Paul says that he worships God, “believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets.” In Luke 24:25, Jesus says that the disciples are “foolish men” because they are “slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” In Romans 15:4, Paul says that “whatever was written” in the Old Testament was “written for our instruction.” These texts give no indication that there is any part of Scripture that is not to be trusted or relied on completely. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 10:11, Paul can refer even to minor historical details in the Old Testament (sitting down to eat and drink, rising up to dance) and can say both that they “happened” (thus implying historical reliability) and “were written down for our instruction.”

If we begin to examine the way in which the New Testament authors trust the smallest historical details of the Old Testament narrative, we see no intention to separate out matters of "faith and practice," or to say that this is somehow a recognizable category of affirmations, or to imply that statements not in that category need not be trusted or thought to be inerrant. Rather, it seems that the New Testament authors are willing to cite and affirm as true every detail of the Old Testament (Grudem1994:93).​

Therefore, the Bible confirms that not only matters of Judeo-Christian faith and practice are affirmed as inerrant in Scripture, but this perfection in the original documents extends to all details in Scripture. Even the citing of error and unrighteousness is truthful in its accuracy.

Oz

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Then you have thrown out a majority of the Christian churches. Because most don't teach inerrant also many of the church fathers didn't teach inerrancy. I'm not saying the Bible isn't inerrant I'm saying that it doesn't have to be inerrant to be true. Furthermore providing a quote/source of a theologians opinion doesn't equate to facts. I could also go to my bookshelf and provide an example of the other opinion. Finally, it is presumptive to assume that the person you quoted knows the scripture better than someone of this site. People that publish books aren't the only ones with degrees in Biblical/Theological studies.

 

[Zstar]

‘INSPIRED -----> INERRANT----->INFALLIBLE’

Makes one wonder if one does get the meaning of a language or a text, huh? Translating it – as far as translations – it’s in what the words convey. If one can not communicate the message to another in their own language or even convey something separate does it seem perfect? Greek, Hebrew – where does Aramaic fit – after all we are to teach what Jesus taught so the Greek is renderings – what does the Texts say? In the language of the Aramaic speaking Nazarene, Jesus?

Manuscripts, as the Latin and such said are formations of concepts, an attempt to communicate. Given the diversity of concepts how would one conclude they are without the common variances unless one Deifies them making something missing the intended purpose. Could they be close, sure - - - without mis-conceptions - - - really?

To tell someone about Jesus by ALL the Books in the Bible is like spinning a web to entrap them, mis-leading and mis-representing God and Jesus for me and I think to them.

Many – such as myself – wonder about God or this Jesus.

Christians, I’ve found to engage in this book to book portray of Bible – been a Bible thumper long ago so know the ins and outs.

Is that all you got to offer? Connect the lines from 66 books? Where Does Jesus and what He taught about Law and Prophets fit in context? Don’t you wonder about the One who founded the Faith? Personally I believe the Bible could taint God and Jesus to the masses – no wonder some would turn elsewhere.

I by no means have it all figured out so can not ‘cast a stone’ at Christianity, nor do I want my words to oppose that Faith – just trying to center it on Jesus.

For example, would you look at where your getting doctrines from – which books – did Jesus teach it or do you taint God and Jesus by your Texts (respect intended) by jumping around this Book… deeming it without error I can understand, been there - - - felt good to live in this land - - - as we learn more about the History and Manuscripts is it fair to represent God or Jesus in contrary to this science? To make God and Jesus a ‘story for religion’ that’s just ‘Faith’ – taken by word?.

God is the essence of science - granted science - to its credit - is trying to figure out God … lol … we just learning about Creation ….

Just thinking no offense intended…

Jesus drove out the this type from the temple (granted up-holding Texts they thought the way) how off, or on track are we ... though to mix it up as something to be practiced in what was intended to be a House of Prayer ... see? Relying on something you really need to question for accuracy - I know it all fits – more reason to look at it deeper. Lest one adhere or propagate to a doctrine that Jesus told us would flourish I think.

The Bible I would assert as any Religious Scripture claims something – such as thoughts words or deeds - is it Truth – back to square one huh? God has a sense of humor.

Interesting topic!

 

[fatboys]

Inerrancy pertains to the original mss not translations, FB. We do not put rocks in a hat and claim perfection.

You know I really want to say something personal to you but I would be banned

 

[OzSpen]

Then you have thrown out a majority of the Christian churches. Because most don't teach inerrant also many of the church fathers didn't teach inerrancy. I'm not saying the Bible isn't inerrant I'm saying that it doesn't have to be inerrant to be true. Furthermore providing a quote/source of a theologians opinion doesn't equate to facts. I could also go to my bookshelf and provide an example of the other opinion. Finally, it is presumptive to assume that the person you quoted knows the scripture better than someone of this site. People that publish books aren't the only ones with degrees in Biblical/Theological studies.

This statement affirms the 'appeal to common practice' logical fallacy.

If the 'majority of Christian churches' do not agree with this position, it does not deny the accuracy of such a position. In addition, you presented not one example to support your case for the 'majority'.

To say that 'it doesn't have to be inerrant to be true' is asking me to affirm the accuracy of Scripture without its being prefect/inerrant.

I also can go to my 2,500 volumes and choose books that do not affirm inerrancy. That proves nothing. Our issues are: (1) What's the biblical evidence? (2) Can the God of perfection make available a document for everyday consumption that is not perfect?

So are you suggesting that Harold Lindsell, John W Montgomery, Wayne Grudem and others who accumulate evidence in support of inerrancy, are presumptive and don't know what they are talking about?

Seems as though you and I are coming from two different perspectives in analysing the biblical evidence for the authority of Scripture.

I provide evidence for 'The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals'.

Oz

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In sharp contrast to the Qur'an (which claims to present the direct, verbatim words of Abraham's deity, unadulterated by the fallible mortal who merely repeated these revelations), the Bible never masks its status as a vast anthology of heterogeneous texts written by human authors over an extended period of time. How fundamentalists could possibly end up believing that it's all basically "GOD'S WORD" mystifies me. (And yes, I am familiar with the Pauline epistle that answers the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures in spite of having discarded Mosaic law. It does not pertain to the "New Testament", and it does not claim infallibility, either.)

 

[OzSpen]

In sharp contrast to the Qur'an (which claims to present the direct, verbatim words of Abraham's deity, unadulterated by the fallible mortal who merely repeated these revelations), the Bible never masks its status as a vast anthology of heterogeneous texts written by human authors over an extended period of time. How fundamentalists could possibly end up believing that it's all basically "GOD'S WORD" mystifies me. (And yes, I am familiar with the Pauline epistle that answers the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures in spite of having discarded Mosaic law. It does not pertain to the "New Testament", and it does not claim infallibility, either.)

These are your assertions. You have provided no defense of your position.

I'm not about to fall in line with your assertions about 'God's Word' when you've provided no support or refute what the 'fundamentalists' believe about Scripture.

Oz

 

[Albion]

This statement affirms the 'appeal to common practice' logical fallacy.

Actually, it does not.

The point was not that a majority believe X, therefore it must be true. The point was that most Christians and churches do not accept your perspective as correct, so it follows logically that it's not as likely of being correct as you want us to believe.

That aside, I think we all still need to agree on what we mean when saying that the Bible is inerrant. Is it inerrant in its religious message or it is inerrant in every last word? Quite a few churches would say the former; far fewer stand behind the latter. And, of course, there are those who do not claim inerrancy at all, as noted--which does not automatically mean they consider the contents to be damaged goods or unreliable.

 

[LordDuncanBurneWilke]

In sharp contrast to the Qur'an (which claims to present the direct, verbatim words of Abraham's deity, unadulterated by the fallible mortal who merely repeated these revelations), the Bible never masks its status as a vast anthology of heterogeneous texts written by human authors over an extended period of time. How fundamentalists could possibly end up believing that it's all basically "GOD'S WORD" mystifies me. (And yes, I am familiar with the Pauline epistle that answers the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures in spite of having discarded Mosaic law. It does not pertain to the "New Testament", and it does not claim infallibility, either.)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

These are your assertions. You have provided no defense of your position.

I'm not about to fall in line with your assertions about 'God's Word' when you've provided no support or refute what the 'fundamentalists' believe about Scripture.

Oz

Well, what exactly do you want me to refute and/or prove?

That the Bible is a heterogeneous anthology instead of a single text written (or dictated verbatim) by a single, divine author? A single glance at the table of contents suffices for that.
That the books of the Bible do not claim to represent God's words (except for passages that explicitly state: "Thus says the LORD")? Again, the text itself suffices.
Or maybe that the Pauline epistle in question does not make the claim that the whole anthology is inerrant? For that, you only need to do one thing: read the epistle in its historical context. For starters, the New Testament did not exist at that point. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Secondly, the letter addresses a specific question, as I pointed out before: should Christians read the Septuagint, or shouldn't they? Paul's answer: yes, read them, they're all inspired and good for instruction. It doesn't even claim inerrancy, let alone direct verbal inspiration.

 

[fatboys]

In sharp contrast to the Qur'an (which claims to present the direct, verbatim words of Abraham's deity, unadulterated by the fallible mortal who merely repeated these revelations), the Bible never masks its status as a vast anthology of heterogeneous texts written by human authors over an extended period of time. How fundamentalists could possibly end up believing that it's all basically "GOD'S WORD" mystifies me. (And yes, I am familiar with the Pauline epistle that answers the question of whether Christians ought to read Jewish scriptures in spite of having discarded Mosaic law. It does not pertain to the "New Testament", and it does not claim infallibility, either.)

There are topics about God we differ greatly but agreement one hundred percent on this