Biblical Inerrancy

[American Deist]

Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.

1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.

2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!

3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.

4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.

The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.

[historia]

They can affirm their beliefs all they like.
It doesn't mean their beliefs are facts.

Of course. In quoting the Chicago Statement, I'm simply pointing out what many Evangelical Christians believe concerning inerrancy.

The point is this: If we are going to criticize an idea, we should criticize the idea as articulated by its adherents, rather than knock down a straw man version of the idea as defined by a critic, such as we have in the OP.

I am not debating whoever wrote the doctrines, but the people in here, after all.
I ask them what they believe, and then we debate about that.

So, it's all very well that you can point to a Christian doctrine...
To most people in here.. it doesn't matter.

Personally, when discussing any idea, I'd rather look at sources that provide the clearest articulation and the strongest defense, as that proves much more interesting.

But, even if you prefer to take the Ray Comfort approach to debate, it seems to me the OP is not even attempting to tackle what Christians on this forum have said, as it quotes precisely none. Instead, we simply have some loose impressions of what some Christians somewhere believe.

which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

That's a belief, not a fact.

The "providence of God" aside, I think this assertion is more properly described as an inference drawn from the available evidence.

It's super great that you think the copies were substantially the same as the originals you must be imagining.

Unfortunately, the product of your imagination should not be considered super great evidence. The evaluation is worthless, because anyone can invent what the "autograph" might have been like.

I'm not simply "imagining" what the originals were like. I'm inferring their content based on a critical examination of the available manuscript evidence. And, as a non-expert myself, relying on experts and peer-reviewed scholarship in doing so.

I'm going to invent right now that they had MORE errors than the copies we have now. That's how editing works. The more editing, the less errors.

The problem with this argument is that there was no single editor or group of editors in the early centuries of Christianity that could have controlled, much less edited, the text in this way. See post 90 above.

[historia]

But we don't have any of the "originals," so there is no way of knowing if they are inerrant.

I think what you mean to say here is that we cannot be absolutely certain what the original text says and so cannot be absolutely certain it is inerrant. But since absolutely certainty is never invoked as a standard we must meet for other ideas, why require it here?

We have to go on what we have. And what we have is definitely not inerrant.

I agree this is the more relevant objection to the doctrine of inerrancy, but that's not the topic of the thread. The question under consideration here is whether the lack of the autographs undermines the concept of inerrancy.

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

We can be certain, as per OUR other debates, that the Roman empire re-wrote, probably destroying the original works.

In terms of absolute certainty, that's good enough for me.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to historia]

I think what you mean to say here is that we cannot be absolutely certain what the original text says and so cannot be absolutely certain it is inerrant. But since absolutely certainty is never invoked as a standard we must meet for other ideas, why require it here?

On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated to an absolute certainty that the Bible contains claims which simply are not true, then it may be said, with absolute certainty, that the Bible is NOT inerrant. Wouldn't you agree?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 92 by historia]

As I said in my previous post, the lack of "originals" is irrelevant. WE have to go on what we have, period. In many cases, it is logical to suppose that the "originals" were definitely not inerrant, either. Genesis, for example, presents two contradictory chronologies of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. These accounts represent two radically different literary styles and represent two earlier conflicting traditions. And when it comes to geophysics, no, the originals were certainly not inerrant in that respect.

[historia]

We can be certain, as per OUR other debates, that the Roman empire re-wrote, probably destroying the original works.

Since you've cited no primary sources or scholars to substantiate this claim, there is still no reason for anyone on this forum to take this conspiracy theory seriously.

[historia]

On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated to an absolute certainty that the Bible contains claims which simply are not true, then it may be said, with absolute certainty, that the Bible is NOT inerrant. Wouldn't you agree?

By definition, if the Bible contains errors then it is not inerrant.

[historia]

As I said in my previous post, the lack of "originals" is irrelevant.

Declaring the topic of the thread irrelevant doesn't make it any less the topic of the thread.

If you want to discuss inerrancy from some other angle, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on that topic.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 96 by historia]

Conspiracy, is as I have perpetually pointed out to you, is the belief that something unlikely or impossible is the will of a larger group, and covered up.

We both agreed at one point, though you seem to retract it now, that the Roman Empire penned the Bible, and widely distributed it. To do this, they would have had to have the originals, and since those originals don't seem to exist anymore; we can conspire to believe they destroyed them, or come up with any other explanation, maybe God took them up into heaven, suits your wisdom better.

So, I am not sure what better citation you could want, are the earliest versions of the Bible insufficient citation? Are you questioning who scribed them, or inappropriately trying to invoke "you can't prove a negative," as a rationale?

As has been pointed out to you many times before: Any conspiracy, if there is one, is clearly in having people believe in resurrections and saviors and all the other things that have no proof, or the proof that is identical to any propaganda pamphlet.

In the face of reality, you are the one supporting a conspiracy, I am just observing and reporting fact.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 99 by Willum]



[center]
Perpetually using strange definitions[/center]

Conspiracy, is as I have perpetually pointed out to you, is the belief that something unlikely or impossible is the will of a larger group, and covered up.

If something is impossible, then it cannot have happened.

And a conspiracy isn't necessarily unlikely at all.
If it happened, it's highly likely, my friend.

Your definition of the term "conspiracy" is an uncommon one.
It usually means "a secret plan by a group".

But then again, I use a dictionary for common English words.