Johnny Skeptic

What I would like to know is what evidence leads some Christians to become inerrantists? Why must God conform to the emotional needs of inerrantists?

Magdlyn

I think they just hold 100% to this:

2 Timothy 3 : 16
KJV: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Without questioning its nuances, context, etc. In this manner:

Kinda makes me puke a little bit into my mouth.

James Brown

As a former fundamentalist, here's my take:

* Inerrancy gives you support against other religions and their scriptures. You can be sure that your religion is the one true religion if your scripture is absolutely perfect in every way.

* The 1 Timothy verse referenced earlier makes it clear: if God sets to do something, the end result is going to be perfect.

* Inerrancy assures us that reading the Bible is worthwhile. One fundamentalist preacher I heard stated it succintly: "Hey, if God didn't write it, why are we reading it?" (Laughter and applause follows.)

* Inerrancy puts to rest any doctrinal conflicts. If your holy book and mine disagree on, say, how to get to heaven, then mine wins by default. Why? Because it's inerrant.

The argument about us not having the original documents is a dead-end to an inerrantist. First, you can claim that we do in fact have the original documents. Second, you can argue that if God can inspire the original authors, then he can also inspire the editors and copyists as well.

Roger Pearse

This is so. It's why I get called a fundamentalist.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stuart shepherd

I once read something by St Augustine, where he argues that the Bible absolutely must be inerrant. If it isn't then it isn't perfect like God. If there is even one error then the possibility exists that there are other errors.

Someone who is interested might be able to find it. ???

stuart shepherd

Johnny Skeptic

What evidence supports that claim?

If God exists, he could inspire the editors and copyists as well, but we already know that he didn't. Even inerrantists admit that there are editing and copyist errors in the Bible.

Fundamentalist Christians have emotional needs, so they have invented a God who satisfies their emotional need to have trustworthy copies of ancient texts.

James Brown

Okay, I'm not an inerrantist, so I don't want to get into a semantics battle with you. All I know is what I absorbed as your average pew-warming inerrantist--not someone who studied Textual Criticism 304 in seminary. And from that perspective, I can say that inerrantists "know" that we have the original documents because it's an article of faith that previous generations of Christians have faithfully copied the texts. Most inerrantists that I know have never heard of Bart Ehrman nor would listen to him if they did on the grounds that he's "biased" because of his skepticism.

Yes, it's circular logic: We know the scripture is inerrant because our faith requires it to be, and anything that is required to be inerrant must be. Of course, when has circular logic ever stopped an apologist?

Reluctantly. And they'll claim the errata is trivial. Or they'll redefine 'inerrant' to mean 'still mighty important' or somesuch. Or they'll mumble numbers like "20,000 copies and compare that to Homer, you skeptic."

Steven Avery

I have not once heard a modern version textcrit claim that they have a faithful copy of the autographa. Not once.

However that view is held by many Received Text folks (Hebrew-Aramaic Masoretic Text, Greek Textus Receptus, English King James Bible).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown Most inerrantists that I know have never heard of Bart Ehrman nor would listen to him if they did on the grounds that he's "biased" because of his skepticism.

The true inerrantists actually consider Bart Ehrman as in essence more honest than the oxymoronic evangelical modern textcrits. Bart understands the logical conclusion of the (flawed) textual criticism process.. an errant and unknown and unkowable text. In fact he claims that is why he shipwrecked his faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic If God exists, he could inspire the editors and copyists as well, but we already know that he didn't. Even inerrantists admit that there are editing and copyist errors in the Bible.

False.
Tangible inerrantists claim to have the perfect Bible, no errors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown Or they'll redefine 'inerrant' to mean 'still mighty important' or somesuch. Or they'll mumble numbers like "20,000 copies and compare that to Homer, you skeptic."

Again, your critique here only applies to the ethereal text errant inerrantists. See above in the thread where the distinction is explained.

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

I meant that "some" inerrantists admit that there are editing and copyist errors in the Bible. You believe that are some errors in the Bible, right?

What I want to know is this: Other than by faith, how can anyone be reasonably certain that the God of the Bible originally inspired the writing of any of the Bible? In addition, why should anyone trust the Bible? I am not aware of any supernatural event in the Bible that can be reasonably proven.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: What I want to know is this: Other than by faith, how can anyone be reasonably certain that the God of the Bible originally inspired the writing of any of the Bible?