FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Why do some Christians assume that the Bible is inerrant?
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 3 of 22 12 3 4513 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-05-2006, 04:33 PM   #21
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,620
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
Miller's definition of inerrancy is ambiguous and lame. There are errors in the original mss themselves. The three Great Uncials are riddled with copyist errors, like spelling. We know this because the Sinaiticus has been identified to have had 4 scribes. One of the four didn't even know Greek as is seen in his atrocious spelling - he wrote the word how it sounded to him. However, these errors became a chief source for scholars to discover how these word were pronounced !

Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford) has identified 11 grammatical errors in one chapter of Mark alone.

Inerrancy properly defined: the Bible contains no factual errors once it is determined what God said.

Ray
Wouldn't it be a good idea to establish the existence of a god. before deciding what he, she, it or they might or might not have said?

David B
David B is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 04:45 PM   #22
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 544
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by David B
Wouldn't it be a good idea to establish the existence of a god. before deciding what he, she, it or they might or might not have said?

David B
This is not an existence topic.

Although I have proven the existence of the Biblical God here with physical evidence:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010

Ray Martinez
WILLOWTREE is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 04:49 PM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,620
Default
ROFLMGDAO

David B
David B is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 05:11 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarus
. . . However, the skeptic will be surpised to learn that thinking people also believe in inerrancy correctly defined and understood.

. . . . Inerrancy is a little corner of the Chrisitan landscape. It is doomed to be misunderstood in the context of this forum. . . . .
In a perhaps futile attempt to keep this thread out of ~E~ territory, please explain:

How is inerrancy correctly defined and understood? How is the different from assume that it means that the Bible (or at least some version or it at some point in history) contains no mistakes?
Toto is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 05:21 PM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,620
Default
Well, I'd suggest that inerrancy demands internal consistency, and agreement with well established science, without special pleading.

And further suggest that the bible doesn't meet those criteria.

David B
David B is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 06:05 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,890
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
This is not an existence topic.

Although I have proven the existence of the Biblical God here with physical evidence:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010

Ray Martinez

Incorrect. This is where you actually failed to prove your assertion and had your claim falsified. Thus, finding what any gods meant in The Bible still requirs you to prove one wrote it.
FatherMithras is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 08:39 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Korea
Posts: 572
Default
Inerrancy is just another example of the binary thinking common to many religions, not just christianism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
Although I have proven the existence of the Biblical God here with physical evidence:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=93010
Your assertion was smashed to bits by Pervy in that debate WT. You "have proven" the existence of god about as much as you "have proven" we can believe anything you say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE August 13, 2004
I am leaving your Talibanic forum - the truth hurts.
knotted paragon is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 09:45 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southwest, US
Posts: 8,759
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatsoff
That's not even an error in the text, much less in the religion itself!
No, it is both since jesus makes the error and the writers and believers like yourself see no problem with it either. It would have helped the NT some if it truly understood what the prophecies of the real expected Messiah were.
sharon45 is offline  
Old 02-05-2006, 11:11 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharon45
No, it is both since jesus makes the error and the writers and believers like yourself see no problem with it either. It would have helped the NT some if it truly understood what the prophecies of the real expected Messiah were.
First of all, I see no textual problem with that passage. But for the sake of argument let's say I'm wrong, and it represents a clear contradiction with other NT text(s): That just means the text is flawed, not the entire religion.

By the way, you should make less assumptions and use more facts.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 02-06-2006, 05:02 AM   #30
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
Miller's definition of inerrancy is ambiguous and lame. There are errors in the original mss themselves. The three Great Uncials are riddled with copyist errors, like spelling.
Hi Ray..

You are right in a sense. If the "three Great Uncials" are actually close to the original text, then inerrancy has a big problem. Not just copyist and spelling errors, but also geographical and logical and lots of other problems. (especially Aleph and B). Also the three uncials are far, far away from each other in text, creating another huge problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
We know this because the Sinaiticus has been identified to have had 4 scribes.
That number sounds very conservative. It is an extremely corrupted text, with scribes constantly trying to fix each others errors. (Vaticanus might be the four scribe one, with the famous "fool and knave: comment). Dean John Burgon said more like 10 to 12 scribes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
One of the four didn't even know Greek as is seen in his atrocious spelling - he wrote the word how it sounded to him. However, these errors became a chief source for scholars to discover how these words were pronounced !.
Only in the 20th century. The scholarship of the historic Bibles, who were well-trained in both semitic and classic languages, was unaffected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. Stanford) has identified 11 grammatical errors in one chapter of Mark alone.
Alexandrian grammatical abominations abound, since those two manuscripts are simply horrid, and should be put 'on the shelf' as minor auxiliary sources. Even the famous grammatical abominations in Revelation trace to those manuscripts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE
Inerrancy properly defined: the Bible contains no factual errors once it is determined what God said.
Inerrancy properly designed is based on the historic Bible text...

not a couple of horrid scribally-corrupt backwater junque written-over texts, embraced by cornfused 'modern scientific textual criticism'.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
Steven Avery is offline  
 
Page 3 of 22 12 3 4513 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:13 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.