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.

[American Deist]

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.

Two points:

1. The OT Autographs were destroyed in 587 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar II and his Persian army. That is when they leveled the temples and deported Jews in an effort to quell the rebellion.

2. The NT Autographs were simply lost over time. The Romans did not pen and distribute Bibles, as Christians were persecuted under the Empire up until Constantine in 313 CE. Besides, the "Bible" developed over several centuries in the CE.

Most likely, the originals were used in every day life by Christians and they eventually just wore out like an old book. They would have been discarded after copies were made.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 101 by American Deist]


[center]
Opinions aren't necessarily facts[/center]

he OT Autographs were destroyed in 587 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar II and his Persian army.

That sure reads as if it were a known fact.
There is no reason for anyone on this forum to take your theory seriously.

Perhaps if you added some facts.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 100 by Blastcat]

Go back an read the statement in context, you will find we are in agreement.
Unless you think resurrection is the more likely of two hypothesis.

Do we really need the dictionary to have a conversation? Please!

Probably.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 96 by historia]

For Blastcat, since apparently context is indiscernible.

Conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

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.

Happy now, BC?

[American Deist]

[Replying to post 102 by Blastcat]

Uhm, it is history 101.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 103 by Willum]


[center]
Defining our terms: Job one in any philosophical discussion[/center]

Do we really need the dictionary to have a conversation?

We have to be able to agree on what the words we want to use mean. And this gets especially important when we are talking about complex abstract concepts.

You can bet that if I trot out my dictionary, it's because we don't.


Sorry, but I get this kind of language difficulty all the time.
Debates devolve all too often on a definition contest.

[historia]

We both agreed at one point, though you seem to retract it now, that the Roman Empire penned the Bible, and widely distributed it.

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else, as we have never agreed that "the Roman Empire penned the Bible," if by that you mean they inserted verses into the text for "propoganda" purposes as you repeatedly claim on this forum.

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.

As American Diest rightly pointed out, the most likely explanation for why we don't have the NT autographs is simply that they wore out and were discarded. This is true of virtually all ancient and Medieval literary works.

So, I am not sure what better citation you could want, are the earliest versions of the Bible insufficient citation?

How do the "earliest versions of the Bible" support your theory that the text was changed in the fourth century under Constantine?

[marco]

[Replying to post 102 by Blastcat]

Uhm, it is history 101.

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 107 by historia]

Sound to me, Mr. Historia, that the ball is still in your court.
Who penned the "best" translations of the Bible then?

Wiki, is good enough for me, if it is not good enough for you, YOU are the one who needs to put their money where their mouth is, instead of the technique of simple disparagement.

It is still on you to prove conspiracy, which is resurrections and such-sense.

Stay on topic, Historia, mis-construe is so 1990's.

How do the "earliest versions of the Bible" support your theory that the text was changed in the fourth century under Constantine?

Are you saying they exactly reproduced them? That no translation or interpretation was required? Are you saying that the Roman Empire, and Rome itself, with nearly a 600 year history of usurping religion to it's own purpose, is suddenly innocent of influence of this particular? What would make you suggest such inconsistency?

Where then are the originals Rome reproduced from? Did God take them into heaven? Why are they not afforded esteem as such documents might be expected to be accorded? Prominence in the public eye.

Yes, it seems the ball is very much in your court, much to explain.

So far, I've heard much criticism, but nothing to disparage history, except the claim, that I need to prove it to you.

Again.

[historia]

Sound to me, Mr. Historia, that the ball is still in your court.

On the contrary, you are the one who made the claim the Bible was "re-written" by the Roman Empire. I've asked you to substantiate the claim. You have yet to do so.

Who penned the "best" translations of the Bible then?

We are not talking about "translations" of the text, we are talking about how it was transmitted -- that is, how the Greek text was copied.

Wiki, is good enough for me, if it is not good enough for you, YOU are the one who needs to put their money where their mouth is, instead of the technique of simple disparagement.

I've simply asked you to support your assertion with evidence and scholarship. That is not "disparaging" in any way.

It is still on you to prove conspiracy, which is resurrections and such-sense.

I've made no assertions about "resurrections and such-sense" so there is nothing for me to "prove."

Stay on topic, Historia, mis-construe is so 1990's.

Again, I'm simply asking you to support your assertion with primary evidence and scholarship. That is not "misconstrual."

How do the "earliest versions of the Bible" support your theory that the text was changed in the fourth century under Constantine?

Are you saying they exactly reproduced them? That no translation or interpretation was required? Are you saying that the Roman Empire, and Rome itself, with nearly a 600 year history of usurping religion to it's own purpose, is suddenly innocent of influence of this particular? What would make you suggest such inconsistency?

I'm simply asking you how the "earliest version of the Bible" support your theory. You cited this as "evidence" but did not explain how it supports your theory. Please do so.

Where then are the originals Rome reproduced from? Did God take them into heaven? Why are they not afforded esteem as such documents might be expected to be accorded? Prominence in the public eye.

They most likely wore out and were discarded after copies had been made. We don't have the original version of virtually any ancient or Medieval work for this reason, whether they were esteemed or not.

This does not substantiate your theory that the text was re-written by the Roman Empire.

So far, I've heard much criticism, but nothing to disparage history, except the claim, that I need to prove it to you.

Again.

Again? I've previously asked you a handful of times to substantiate this assertion, and each time you cited no primary evidence or scholarship. Until you do so, no one here as any reason to take this theory seriously.