FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-02-2007, 08:41 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Does Christian fundamentalism require the belief that the Bible is inerrant?

By "inerrant," I mean inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 08:51 AM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
By "inerrant," I mean inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors.
Would not an inerrancy that includes "scribal and copyist errors" always be able to simply claim such an error as an "out" for a verse reading that was uncomforable ?

Should such a belief really be called "inerrancy" if it cannot point to an actual tangible text in any language ? Doesn't that stand language on its head, to claim an errant inerrant Bible ?

Shalom,
Steven
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 08:52 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,719
Default

I suspect it is the other way around: fundamentalists assume the bible is inerrant. That doesn't mean that, should the bible be proved errant (as has been abundantly done), the fundamentalists will then de-fundamentalize. They will either just ignore it, or denial it away. So it is not a requirement in the sense of : If it isn't so, we'll give up. It is a postulate. It is a rare (I think) fundamentalist who can be reasoned out of his/her basement position.

Gerard Stafleu
gstafleu is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 09:33 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
By "inerrant," I mean inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by praxeus
Would not an inerrancy that includes "scribal and copyist errors" always be able to simply claim such an error as an "out" for a verse reading that was uncomforable ?

Should such a belief really be called "inerrancy" if it cannot point to an actual tangible text in any language? Doesn't that stand language on its head, to claim an errant inerrant Bible?
You can call the belief of inerrancy anything that you wish. The main issue is that if a God inspired the writing of the original Bible, what evidence do you have that the copies that we have today do not contain a lot of important errors? As an example, regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, why do you believe that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves with the belief that they were speaking for God?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 09:47 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 1,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
By "inerrant," I mean inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors.
If one goes by the original "fundamentals of the Christian faith" principles, then of course biblical inerrancy is a core belief:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame..._Christianity:

Quote:
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[3]

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[4]
If one means "fundamentalism" in general, then other nuances are possible.
Ray Moscow is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 10:18 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,060
Default

It was when I was a Christian Fundamentalist. Maybe they've changed the rules since then.
tjakey is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 02:48 PM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Moscow
The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) ... Inerrancy of the Scriptures
Hi Ray,

Actually this Conference and time was part of the dynamic of retreat from true, tangible inerrancy (the historic Reformation belief) towards an essentially meaningless construct of inerrancy only in an unknown text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worship as Meaning: A Liturgical Theology for Late Modernity
By Graham Hughes
As Sandeen and others have shown, Warfield constructed a case now recognized as unfalsifiable and thus inoperable:
Warfield... phrased his defense of the of the inerrancy of the original autographs in such a way that no further discussion was possible. In retreating to the original autographs, Warfield, whether intentionally or not, brought the Princeton apologetic to a triumphant conclusion. Since in order to prove the Bible in error it now became necessary to find the original manuscripts, War field might have concluded .. by announcing that inerrancy could never be denied .
Roots of Fundamentalism British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930
- Ernest Sandeen (1970) p.112
This is what occurred during the move towards Niagara and Chicago inerrancy. These conferences were actually a move away from true inerrancy. Note that the errant alexandrian texts had recently become popular. So tangible inerrancy was no longer seen as an option by those who had been so confused by the theories of Griesbach, Westcott and Hort that they took a corrupt text over the pure historic Bible.

Thus came forth Niagara and Chicago "inerrancy".

Shalom,
Steven
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 08-02-2007, 03:15 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 1,255
Default

So, what was the previous biblical "inerrancy"?

It always seems silly to me to argue for the inerrancy of "original manuscripts" that were forever lost.
Ray Moscow is offline  
Old 08-03-2007, 05:13 AM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Message to praxeus: Regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, why do you believe that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves with the belief that they were speaking for God? Surely you will agree that innocent but inaccurate revelations are common among the writers of religious books. How can a religious writer be reasonably certain that he is speaking for God? It is my position that fundamentalist Christians typically portray a God who appeals to their emotional needs regarding how they want God to act. If God really wanted people to know about him, don't you think that he would have made written records about him available to everyone, or at least word of mouth records available to everyone?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 08-03-2007, 06:30 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Is it required that a man be single in order to be a bachelor?

Belief in inerrancy is partially definitive of Christian fundamentalism. Most English-speakers, when they call someone a fundamentalist, mean that the person referred to accepts the dogma of inerrancy, among others.
Doug Shaver is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:44 PM.

Top

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