Biblical Inerrancy

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
American Deist
Apprentice
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:08 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

Biblical Inerrancy

Post #1

Post by 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.
I am only responsible for what I say, not what you fail to understand!
P.D. Chaplain w/ Th.D., D.Div. h.c.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Post #121

Post by historia »

hoghead1 wrote:
The OP makes it very clear that we are talking about the Bibles we have, how we can claim they are inerrant.
Yes, and the author of the OP himself has clarified that the specific question under consideration is whether the lack of the autographs undermines the doctrine of inerrancy.

And yet for some reason you decided to declare to all of us that the question under consideration is "irrelevant" and that you have other reasons for thinking the Bible is not inerrant.

Let me be clear: I am interested in discussing the question under consideration as posed by the author of the thread. So there is no reason for you to continually tell me you have these other reasons for thinking the Bible is not inerrant. I simply don't care.
hoghead1 wrote:
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.
On the contrary, advocates of inerrancy are, in fact, saying the exact opposite of this. They are saying that the text we have now is substantially the same as the originals. And so any argument made against the substance of the text today -- as you are eager to do -- applies equally to the originals.

That is a perfectly consistent position. What is inconsistent is saying we have "no idea" what the originals said but then claiming they must have contained errors.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #122

Post by Willum »

[Replying to historia]

And now you accuse me of ducking the question: Without so much as a single reference on your side.

I can't see what question I am ducking, I have provided support, an certainly facts (Rome re-writing, Jesus-supporting Rome, Rome's religious policy, etc.) that is certainly trivial enough to check up on, when I haven't actually done it for you.

You missed which verses were altered - ah capitol proof you are not reading posts to debate; the verses where Jesus said to pay a blasphemous tax (or tithes - same word in Latin) to a divine emperor and to submit to its pagan government. Even the coins Jesus touched and the Jews were asks to pay had graven images of the divine and semi-divine Caesar on them, against a few of those commandment things.

I guess clever words are all God's champions have to defend him. In my opinion then all this God must be is a God composed of clever words.

So anyway, if you have nothing, concede gracefully.

User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Post #123

Post by historia »

[Replying to post 122 by Willum]

So, to be clear:

You are asserting that Matthew 22:21 ("Render unto Caesar") was added to the Gospel of Matthew in the 4th Century at the direction of the Roman government. This verse, according to you, was not part of that gospel prior to the middle of the 4th Century.

Is that your assertion?

Any other verse you think was added?

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #124

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 123 by historia]

My assertion is you have got nothing to back up the pages and pages of criticism you've been pouring on this OP. My assertion is; "Time's up!"

I am not interested in you asking me what I said so you can redefine it down a rabbit-hole.
Our conversations have been pages and pages of obfuscation, I guess we're done.

I can site three and more topics in the last few weeks that have radically changed my mind, can you make any such claim?

Good bye.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

Post Reply