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]

And I don't think anyone is arguing the text we have today is an "exact" copy.

The thread OP is about biblical inerrancy, and how it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove inerrancy since the Autographs no longer exist. You just confirmed my OP with the above statement.

If all that you are saying is that we cannot "prove," in some absolute sense, this idea, then I'm afraid this is a vacuous assertion.

As I pointed out in my original rely in post 47, we don't have "proof," in some absolute sense, for most of the beliefs we hold. So why should we require it for this particular idea?

The Bible contains human errors, and therefore would not be an exact copy of the Autographs.

Again, the doctrine of inerrancy asserts that the autographs are inerrant; it doesn't assert that all copies are free from scribal errors.

It seems to me you've conflated these two ideas. The Chicago Statement, for example, clearly separates the two:

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

The point this Statement is making is not that the text we posses today is inerrant, but rather that the original text is inerrant. But, in so far as the text we posses today is substantially the same as the original (which I think is likely true), then the proponent of inerrancy can claim that the text we possess today is trustworthy and authoritative.

Whether the original text is inerrant is, of course, open to debate. But it seems to me your argument here concerns the copies and translation, arguing against a strawman version of the doctrine as if it claimed things about those that it simply does not.

Again, I have to ask: When you say the text we posses today does not "resemble" the original, what exactly do you mean? That the text we have today is completely different from the originals, as if the originals are about some other topic altogether?

"Resemble" is not the same as inerrant. You are now moving the goalposts.

Moving the goal posts? I'm simply asking you to clarify your earlier statement that the text we have today does not resemble the originals. How so? You seem reluctant to explain, let alone substantiate, this claim. Why?

[Zzyzx]

.

The point this Statement is making is not that the text we posses today is inerrant, but rather that the original text is inerrant.

How can anyone even pretend to know that the 'original text is inerrant' when that text is NOT available for examination?

But, in so far as the text we posses today is substantially the same as the original (which I think is likely true),

Since the original text is NOT available, claiming that modern texts are 'substantially the same as the original' is SPECULATION.

then the proponent of inerrancy can claim that the text we possess today is trustworthy and authoritative.

On what is that claim based – since originals are not available? Speculation again? Wishful thinking?

I'm simply asking you to clarify your earlier statement that the text we have today does not resemble the originals. How so? You seem reluctant to explain, let alone substantiate, this claim. Why?

Perhaps you can demonstrate the concept by explaining / substantiating your claim “But, in so far as the text we posses today is substantially the same as the original (which I think is likely true),�

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 81 by historia]




[center]Biblical Innerancy = The belief that imagined originals were perfect[/center]

we don't have "proof," in some absolute sense, for most of the beliefs we hold. So why should we require it for this particular idea?

That's an excellent point.
The demand for an "absolute" anything is unrealistic.

Again, the doctrine of inerrancy asserts that the autographs are inerrant; it doesn't assert that all copies are free from scribal errors.

1. Errors are errors.
2. We don't HAVE any autograph Bible text.

3. What texts we have contain errors.
4. To say that there aren't any... just doesn't make sense.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture,

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

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

That's a belief, not a fact.

We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Another belief.
Religious people are great at affirming those.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Denialism is also a quite common religious trait.
People outside to the faith have to contend with that phenomenon all the time.

Denying something isn't describing a fact, either.

The point this Statement is making is not that the text we posses today is inerrant, but rather that the original text is inerrant.

They are talking about those "imagined" originals.
Who knows... they might have had WAY MORE ERRORS than the later copies.

The authors might have been not as literate as the later ones.

Editing, you see.
Literacy.

Is that even a POSSIBILITY?

But, in so far as the text we posses today is substantially the same as the original (which I think is likely true), then the proponent of inerrancy can claim that the text we possess today is trustworthy and authoritative.

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 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.

And quite possibly, the more changes, too.
In this case, the copies of the copies of the translations might hardly resemble the "autographs" very much at all.

Who knows, right?

Whether the original text is inerrant is, of course, open to debate.

Do you really think so?

1. We see errors in the texts.
2. Because of all the errors in the texts.

What's to debate?
The nature of imagined autographs.. I suppose.

But it seems to me your argument here concerns the copies and translation, arguing against a strawman version of the doctrine as if it claimed things about those that it simply does not.

Yah...

That may be so.

I think that I misunderstood the doctrine too.. ( mostly just ignorant ). I usually get my religious "facts" from religious people I debate with. I know.. I know.. a terrible source.

But it's also true that religious people don't all follow the same doctrines.
To me, it's one at a time...get in line.

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.

Christians will DEBATE Christian doctrine.
Is one particular doctrine supposed to be TRUE?

They ALL ARE supposed to be true.

The one you mentioned is just an affirmation of another particular set of Christian beliefs. It's a statement of belief, these aren't facts, these are BELIEFS.

[center]
And when it comes to Christian beliefs, my friend.. there are quite a few.[/center]

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 81 by historia]

But we don't have any of the "originals," so there is no way of knowing if they are inerrant. Hence, it is a moot point. We have to go on what we have. And what we have is definitely not inerrant. And mere "scribal errors" certainly does not describe or address any of the major contradictions in Scripture, not to mention the inaccurate geophysics. Take the creation account in Genesis. It is actually a composite of two earlier accounts. And its chronology is contradictory. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. The accounts, in Hebrew, are in two very different literary styles, coming from two different periods. This isn't a matter of mere copyist error, this is matter of two conflicting traditions. And from the standpoint of modern science, neither one is correct.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

That may be a bit of oversimplification.

In the United States, Copyright law has two basic categories - protected works and public domain. When a work has been around long enough (currently 95 years after the first publication or 70 years after the author's death) it enters the public domain, and is therefore allowed to be reproduced at will.
According to the "Copyright Act", any work published prior to 1923 is in the public domain. This means many older translations are fair use:

King James Version
Revised Standard Version (but not the NRSV)
Duoay-Rheims
Young's Literal
Darby
JPS Bible (but not the New JPS nor the Jerusalem Bible)

Additionally, some translations were specifically geared to avoid this issue.
The World English Bible (WEB)
The New English Translation - i.e the "Net" Bible Note: Does not apply if you charge for it, though...
The WikiSource Translation
The Lexham translation - Requires attribution and can only be sold if it is less than 25% of a work (or 50% for non-profits)
The English Standard Version ESV is copyrighted, but the terms are intentionally loose:
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... lic-domain

[Zzyzx]

.
HH, It is indeed a pleasure to find common ground in spite of different theistic position.

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

Exactly. We agree 100%.

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

Agree again.

And mere "scribal errors" certainly does not describe or address any of the major contradictions in Scripture, not to mention the inaccurate geophysics.

To Literalist Bible Believers 'there are no contradictions' – even though Bible stories may say one thing in one place and directly the opposite in another place. It HAS to be 100% or their whole belief system goes up in smoke.

Take the creation account in Genesis. It is actually a composite of two earlier accounts. And its chronology is contradictory. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. The accounts, in Hebrew, are in two very different literary styles, coming from two different periods. This isn't a matter of mere copyist error, this is matter of two conflicting traditions.

Don't confuse them (generic term) with such accurate observations. They can 'explain' it all away (at least in their minds – at least for a while).

And from the standpoint of modern science, neither one is correct.

Don't confuse them (generic term) by citing science. They KNOW that science is wrong and ancient storytellers (whoever they may have been) had the TRUTH (and/or absolute truth, or universal truth).

Of course, many or most readers may be expected to understand

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Yes, it is always good to find common ground. And yes, the Literalists will do just as you said. The AIG (All Intelligence Gone) website is quite specific that it will not accept any scientific evidence that challenges its religious views on the inerrancy of Scripture.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, it is always good to find common ground

To some it may seem strange that I, a Non-Theist, would so often be aligned with Liberal (and Thoughtful) Theists in opposition to Bible Thumpers (Literalists / Fundamentalists / Traditionalists).

The AIG (All Intelligence Gone) website is quite specific that it will not accept any scientific evidence that challenges its religious views on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Isn't that a pathetic waste of human intelligence . . . if intelligence is the right word. Where is the reasoning, judgment, discernment, thinking . . . ? That is boastful willful ignorance of modern knowledge in favor of ancient religious beliefs.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Well, it isn't strange to me. Happens all the time. People who disagree on one subject may agree on another.

[historia]

The point this Statement is making is not that the text we posses today is inerrant, but rather that the original text is inerrant.

How can anyone even pretend to know that the 'original text is inerrant' when that text is NOT available for examination?

Because the text we have today appears to be substantially the same as the original.

Since the original text is NOT available, claiming that modern texts are 'substantially the same as the original' is SPECULATION.

No, it's an inference drawn from the available evidence. We do this all the time in history and science.

then the proponent of inerrancy can claim that the text we possess today is trustworthy and authoritative.

On what is that claim based – since originals are not available? Speculation again? Wishful thinking?

This claim is the logical conclusion of the beliefs that (a) God inspired the original text and (b) the text we have today is substantially the same as the original.

One can certainly challenge the first point. But the OP challenges the second point, which is, I think, a much weaker objection.

Perhaps you can demonstrate the concept by explaining / substantiating your claim “But, in so far as the text we posses today is substantially the same as the original (which I think is likely true),�

Sure, let's focus on the New Testament. Some observations:

First, we currently possess 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, some dating to as early as the 2nd and 3rd Century. There are also another 15,000 manuscripts that are translations of the Greek into Latin, Syriac, and other ancient languages. The Old Latin and Old Syriac texts we posses are copies from translations made in the 2nd Century.

When we examine all of these texts together, we find that they are very similar. Many of the differences within the Greek corpus, for example, are simple spelling mistakes or obvious copying errors, which are easily explained. Even most of the viable differences do not affect the meaning of the text.

Second, there are several streams of texts within this corpus of manuscripts.

The various books of the New Testament were initially written and circulated independently of each other in disparate parts of the Roman world. Even when some of the books were later brought together in small collections, this was done so at different times in different places, with subsequent copies produced independently of those in other geographic regions. This is reflected in the surviving copies, as there are clearly several independent families of manuscripts in the Greek corpus as well as the translations.

Text critics have long noted that one of these families of Greek texts shows very careful signs of copying. The manuscripts in this 'Alexandrian' stream, such as Vaticanus (B) and P75, are relatively free of obvious copying errors and, more importantly, preserve what text critics have judged to be more primitive readings.

Based on the dates of these manuscripts, this 'strict' text must go back to early in the 2nd Century, if not, in fact, back to the originals. Note: This is a complex point that rests on a century of textual research; it is, however, widely agreed upon in the relevant scholarly literature.

From these two observations we can, I think, dispel the idea that the text we have today does not "resemble" the original, as was asserted above. For that to be true, each of the books of the New Testament would have had to have separately undergone significant changes in their respective transmission history, which would then have produced much greater variability than what we see in the surviving manuscripts. Moreover, in these early centuries, no one had the ability to control the various texts in such a way so as to eliminate this diversity had it originally existed.

So the best explanation of the evidence is that the critical text we possess now is substantially the same as the original.