Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you are called to understand the original languages, I wish you blessing in the endevour.
Thanks, you too.
It's not so much that they edited or omitted parts, but they engaged in text criticism of sorts and came to the conclusion that certain parts weren't as likely to be original. Even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have are from incomplete copies that sometimes have different readings that have been argued over by scholars to put together a Greek and Hebrew codex to translate from. The issue with inerrancy is simply that even if it is true that the original documents were inerrant(and modern scholarship even calls into question whether there were 'original" documents in some cases) everything we're working with has errors. So if our trust in the Bible depends on inerrancy, we don't have a trustworthy Bible. It is the premise that it must be inerrant to be trustworthy that those of us who deny inerrancy deny, not just inerrancy itself.
It is not God, and only God is infallible.
Ok, even with a corrrected definition, I'll repeat, "And yet we're talking about supernaturaltruths here, vital ones, and people naturally seek certainty about them. As it is, folks so often sincerely argue opposing positions as if there's is straight from God's mouth and your's is heresy."
When we go back in time we'd be very hardpressed to find any adherents to TULIP doctrines among the millions of words written by the early fathers, for example. And I find that to be quite significant. And it wasn't Scripture alone that fostered opposition to Arianism, but a "sensus fidei" as well that pervaded even though the nature of Christ hadn't been focused upon or addressed in the chruch as a whole during previous centuries.
And yet we all have our status quos and folks holding to Sola Scriptura have there's challenged as well by others holding to that same doctrine. The meaning of verses/passages regarding importamt matters of the faith are simply often not agreed upon; Scripture is not a catechism, for one thing, and was never intended to serve as one.
I think I may have misunderstood you originally. I thought you were accusing me of heresy, not referring to common posturing. It's certainly true that many people present infallibility of their interpretations, but that's more a problem of doctrine like perspicuity and such built on verses like 2 Peter 3:16. It's an error, not something that should be treated as the default.
I agree, though I'm a believer in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral model rather than a strict Sola Scriptura one.
It's not, but the catechisms only create a false picture of unity when there is a great deal of division even within the Catholic church. It's simply that some diversity is tolerated while others are repressed.
I agree. Where there are various styles of translations and while perfect translations into other languages are impossible anyway even if we had original manuscripts in hand-and while some theological bias may creep in here and there as well-modern translators have more resources and scholarship than ever before and we can trust that the more popular current versions are "inerrant enough" to serve the bible's intended purpose.This bit.We have a trustworthy Jesus Christ, and a perfectly sufficient Bible.
I get that now, and the issue you were expressing is certainly a common reality but its roots go deeper than just inerrancy since it depends on a belief in supernatural clarity and a denial that every reader interprets what they are reading.
To reject the idea of inerrancy is not to say that the Bible cannot be believed at all.
Inerrancy and the overall trustworthiness are too often tethered together as if they are the same, so it's understandable that you would be suspicious. It seems especially problematic if your only tether to the faith is the Bible, but the reality is that it is the historic witness that tethers us together. And by that I don't mean some mystical tradition that is beyond question but the ongoing transmission from generation of Christians to generation of Christians. We know the Bible is trustworthy because we see how it changes the lives of the people who put it into practice, and there are a number of ways to understand what the Bible is that are easily overlooked with how many people talk about these things.
