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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 110 by historia]

On the contrary - it seems to me the most ancient versions of the Bible have a well know source... Rome.

This would be from, presumably some original source, unless it is your claim that those "Bibles," were originated by Rome... in which case they weren't re-written at all, but simply made up there.
That works for me. How do you defend they were not "re-written," then? This puzzles me.

You presumably wish me to prove:

According to the Latin Decretum Gelasianum (also known as the Gelasian Decree), thought to be of a 6th-century document[100][101] of uncertain authorship and of pseudepigraphal papal authority (variously ascribed to Pope Gelasius I, Pope Damasus I, or Pope Hormisdas)[102][103][104] but reflecting the views of the Roman Church by that period,[105] the Council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus I (366-383) assembled a list of books of the Bible.

-Wiki

Leaving the original documents on your poor head to justify. Where did they go? Where did the counsel get the versions it presumably copied? Why would one assume the government of Rome wouldn't make them say exactly what they wanted them to say?
Again, leaving you with the conspiracy to prove.
Ho-hum.

All you are simply doing is creating circles within circles, while I remain on point.
Forgive me if I remain on topic while you say, what I said, means something I did not say.

The matter is very simple.

The ball remains in your court, why not simply answer the assertion?
Because, of course, you can not without conceding the issue.

Casual examine will reveal your posts becoming longer and longer, and more circuitous in response to a simple question.

Good luck.

[historia]

On the contrary - it seems to me the most ancient versions of the Bible have a well know source... Rome.

You presumably wish me to prove:

According to the Latin Decretum Gelasianum (also known as the Gelasian Decree), thought to be of a 6th-century document[100][101] of uncertain authorship and of pseudepigraphal papal authority (variously ascribed to Pope Gelasius I, Pope Damasus I, or Pope Hormisdas)[102][103][104] but reflecting the views of the Roman Church by that period,[105] the Council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus I (366-383) assembled a list of books of the Bible.

-Wiki

So a regional council of Christians in Rome in the 4th Century assembled a list of books.

Clearly, that doesn't in any way shape or form show the Roman government "re-wrote" the Bible. The New York Times assembles a list of the most popular books every week, that doesn't mean they or the American government are "re-writing" those books.

If this is the best "evidence" you have to support your assertion, I'm afraid you've failed completely.

How do you defend they were not "re-written," then?

Why would one assume the government of Rome wouldn't make them say exactly what they wanted them to say?

It is not up to me or anyone else to show something didn't happen. It is up to you to show it did. You made the claim the Bible was "re-written" by the Roman government, but have provided no relevant evidence to show this is the case. There is therefore no reason for any of us to believe it.

All you are simply doing is creating circles within circles, while I remain on point.
Forgive me if I remain on topic while you say, what I said, means something I did not say.

The matter is very simple.

The ball remains in your court, why not simply answer the assertion?
Because, of course, you can not without conceding the issue.

Casual examine will reveal your posts becoming longer and longer, and more circuitous in response to a simple question.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to me, and no doubt others here, that you are unable to provide any evidence or scholarship to support your assertion. Your attempt here to deflect the argument away from this fact is fooling no one.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 112 by historia]

It is certainly better evidence than any you have provided, a cynical tone to the contrary, you still have much explaining to do.

I hate to repeat myself, so, please feel free to re-read what I have written.

Ah, I did think you were going to pull the "can't prove a negative," dodge, and here you go, trying to say that I am asking you to prove a negative, predictable.

So, we have the positive evidence:
Rome published the books of the Bible. That's my evidence - why is it objectionable/"unscholarly?"
The books that they published from are no longer available. If they ever existed (that is your problem).
Rome has a 600 year history, at the time of the re-printing, or re-writing religion (not proven to be the Bible) to suit it needs.

Then we have supporting data of Jesus advocating support of the pagan government of Rome, and paying tithes to the divine Caesar. We have the supreme god of Rome's name being iove, which is for some reason the same as the God of the Jews, after 70AD.

STILL BEGGING THE QUESTION:
Aside from mis-direction and sarcasm, what do you got?

My premise is the all-to-routine use of propaganda - and propaganda is simply lies depicting the errancy of the Bible.
Yours is miracles documented in a book, widely distributed by a people who used the propaganda.

Hmmmm...
Do you have anything to support your premise?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 98 by historia]

I don't know where you get that idea. The OP clearly states that we do not have the originals and therefore honors my point. And, as I pointed out in a previous post, there is every reason to believe that the "originals" were not inerrant.

[historia]

I don't know where you get that idea.

Allow me to recap our conversation, then, to clarify.

In post 92 I said:

The question under consideration here is whether the lack of the autographs undermines the concept of inerrancy.

To which you responded:

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

If you are saying the lack of the originals is irrelevant, then you are saying the question under consideration is irrelevant, as the topic of this thread specifically concerns that point.

If that is not clear from the OP, American Diest has subsequently clarified the question:

The thread OP is about biblical inerrancy, and how it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove inerrancy since the Autographs no longer exist.

This is the topic we are discussing.

The OP clearly states that we do not have the originals and therefore honors my point.

The OP clearly states that we do not have the originals and this fact is directly relevant to the doctrine of inerrancy. You stated the lack of originals is irrelevant to the point you want to make, in which case the point you want to make is not relevant to the question under consideration.

And, as I pointed out in a previous post, there is every reason to believe that the "originals" were not inerrant.

Yes, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, this is not the question under consideration.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 115 by historia]

The OP makes it very clear that we are talking about the Bibles we have, how we can claim they are inerrant. Trying to argue there were "originals" and that these were inerrant is totally irrelevant. The fact if the matter is, the Bibles we have are not inerrant, period, end of it. Those holding with biblical inerrancy think they are throwing sand in our eyes, keeping us from appreciating the errancy of Scripture, by quickly changing the topic and focusing on alleged inerrant originals. Sorry, won't work with me. And when in comes to the "originals," there is very good reasons to doubt they were inerrant. I find it impossible to believe that an ancient people would have been privy to advanced scientific knowledge and "originally" claimed that the universe began 14.5 billion years ago, that we weren't created in six days, but through millions of years of evolution, etc. Plus, as I already pointed out, the numerous biblical contradictions clearly indicate that the Bible incorporated earlier traditions that conflicted with o ne another and therefore could hardly be inerrant.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 115 by historia]

There you go again, the OP assumptions are important, then it's not important, hoghead tries to make a point, waiving something to make it, you invoke the same thing again, to discredit it. Is this the way to have a debate?

Have you provided anything other than out-of-context posts of other contributers to make your point, anywhere?

Reviewing, reviewing...

[historia]

Rome published the books of the Bible. That's my evidence - why is it objectionable/"unscholarly?"

If by this you mean that, after Constantine came to power in the middle of the 4th Century, the Roman government gave material support to Christian scribes to make copies of the Bible, then, yes, we agree.

That fact, in itself, doesn't mean they altered the text, of course.

The books that they published from are no longer available. If they ever existed (that is your problem).

If by this you mean the scribes of the late-4th Century would have made their copies from manuscripts that existed at that time, then we agree.

However, your claim that these are "no longer available" is mistaken. We currently possess a number of NT manuscripts from the 2nd and 3rd Century. We also posses the works of 2nd and 3rd Century Christian authors who quoted extensively from the Bible as it existed in their day.

From both of these sources we can demonstrate what large portions of the New Testament text said prior to the 4th Century. So, if you want to assert the text was changed in the 4th Century, simply tell us which verses were added, removed, or altered and we can compare that to the 2nd and 3rd Century evidence.

Then we have supporting data of Jesus advocating support of the pagan government of Rome, and paying tithes to the divine Caesar.

Is it your assertion that Matthew 22:21 ("Render unto Caesar") was added in the 4th Century at the direction of the Roman government? If so, then this is a simple example to test your assertion against the available evidence.

The rest of your "evidence" is irrelevant when we can compare the text before and after the supposed "re-writing," so all of that can be safely discarded.

My premise is the all-to-routine use of propaganda - and propaganda is simply lies depicting the errancy of the Bible.
Yours is miracles documented in a book, widely distributed by a people who used the propaganda.

Hmmmm...
Do you have anything to support your premise?

My argument is simply that the manuscript evidence shows that the New Testament was not re-written in the 4th Century. That is the consensus of modern scholarship too. Pretty simple, really.

[Willum]

[Replying to historia]

That fact, in itself, doesn't mean they altered the text, of course.

Can you provide some documentation or sources to demonstrate that Rome altered its 600 year policy of usurping local religions in order to pacify communities?

I am of course referring to Sulis-Minerva, Amon-Zeus, and so on, Hercules adapted to German Thor, the cult of Rome, fusion of Zeus with totem deities and of course
Yahweh, miraculously pronounced iove.

You do have some reason to suspect, some author of note who can attest that Rome suddenly stopped using religion to pacify conquered people, and would never modify whatever the original text was, in Rome's favor?

How does one explain Jesus' invectives were to pay tribute to the God Caesar and obey the pagan monarchy of Rome? It's a head scratcher.

Some reason to believe, that when Rome conquered Jerusalem, the arrival of Jesus and change of the traditional name of the God of Israel to Yahweh?

You still have not provided a single whisk of evidence to support your view. I guess failing that, you concede?

[historia]

[Replying to post 119 by Willum]

Don't duck the question. If you want to assert the text was changed in the 4th Century, simply tell us which verses were added, removed, or altered so we can compare that to the 2nd and 3rd Century evidence.