Vinnie

One more thing:

So God is in fact the [or a] author of confusion? For whatever Divine reasons he has, of course

Vinnie

TheDiddleyMan

Wow. Interesting. My own opinion is that it is the strongest evidence for Christianity but I just don't think we can know what happened. To me there are just too many questions surrounding the event, as you said.

I would love to probe your thoughts on some of the particulars, but maybe some other time....


Kevin

CX

Are you objecting to my omission of Jewish scholars? Should I perhaps leave it at "very few biblical scholars are atheists"? The original suggestion was that rejection of inerrancy was a product of atheistic bias. Given the number of nonatheists in the field of biblical studies who do not accept inerrancy this would seem to be a non sequitur. Are you suggesting that the majority of biblical scholars ARE atheists? I guess I'm unsure why you find the statement curious.

Quote:

Which part of biblical studies allows a suitably 'qualified' person to determine whether a text is inerrant? This must be a theological statement, not something you can do in a test-tube.

I disagree that inerrancy is a theological statement unless you define inerrancy further. Rather it is a statement about existing states of affairs that can be tested empirically. Consequently someone with a suitable background in text criticism etc. is certainly qualified of testing the hypothesis and either rejecting or accepting it.

Quote:

I think this [recentness of inerrancy as a doctrine] is a confusion between a name and a thing.

Please elaborate.

Quote:

Is this related to the bits in this thread about not needing knowledge of the original languages?

Not remotely. I am not asserting that knowledge of the original languages is a prequisite for studying the bible (although it certainly helps considerably). I'm merely pointing out the erroneous of attributing the conclusions of an individual to his metaphysical stance.

Vinnie

Biblical inerrancy is a theological statement. I demonstrated why in my response to Abolish. The Bible is actually an anthology. Its not a single book. Any attempt at calling the "Bible" inerrant assumes canonization of the Old and New Testaments. The apologist views the Bible in this sense. The historians treats the works individually. Ergo, inerrancy is a theological statement, not a historical, logical or scientific one.

There is no logical way to get to canonization other than useless backpeddling that "the Holy Spirit guided them." This is not testable, it does not follow from any premise (e.g. even if we grant Jesus was God). Its not science. It can be said about any doctrine, any Holy book(s) and so forth. Inerrancy is a theological statement all the way. Especially since there is no logical way to get to it.

Vinnie

CX

Even so, the statement, "the books of the Xian canon are inerrant indvidually and collectively" (which is generally what inerrantists mean in my experience) is a testable claim. The nature of canonization etc. is entirely irrelevant

Vinnie

Given the large size, the nature and quantity of controversial subjects discussed, the host of different authors coming from different time frames and so on, it would be impossible for those books to be inerrant and in perfect agreement if not written or guided by God. That is by derfinition a theological statement. Of course I'll grant it could be argued through historical means as you suggest.


But ALL inerrantists recognize that there is a canonical dimension to these books. Otherwise you couldn't get around the problem of "why these books" and we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place. I mean, did we just randomly compile a few books and test them? No one looks at texts of Shakespear or any other works and sees if they are inerrant. Again, why these texts? Canonization is not irelevant.

Also, as abolish said, "Let the Bible interpret itself here." I don't know of an inerrancy advocate who does not believe in this principle. Do you? Inerrancy has a canonical dimension stamped all over it.

And as stuffed Turkel said in his article: "Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?" It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved;"

This assumes a canonical dimesnion to the "bible". It assumes a unanimous message to these individual books which weren't just randomly thrown together. My question is how did we ever get "these books" as opposed to "those books"???

The stance you are advocating looks like a fancy attempt at making theology into history. Its a smoke screen. But on the off-chance that I am wrong (Blasphemy!), if there is in fact a way to circumvent canonization that I am not aware of, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Vinnie

Jim Larmore

I guess I need to throw my two cents worth in here.

Its most amazing to me to find out through study just how harmonious the Bible actually is . Sure you can find a lot of "supposed contradictions" and many of them may very well be "contradictions" but considering its a compilation of 66 books written over a thousand years by 40 plus authors its amazingly harmonius.

I would like to find out more about the actual criteria that was used to decide what was and wasn't canonized by the translators and compilers. For instance why was the textus receptus ( Eusubius' original ) used instead of the more narratively correct later versions? Why didn't they use earlier christian writings like the gospel of Thomas? Why weren't some of the maccabean books used? I know Martin Luther had a lot to do with the N.T. books being canonized I was just wondering about the criteria he or they used.

About inerrancy , its really a matter of accepting or not the "inspirational" aspect of the Bible. I believe the Bible is for the most part the "inspired" word of God. However, in the process of using human instrumentalities the error factor has to be considered. The Bible says "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost", I think it is for this reason that the general " theme" of the Bible is inerrant. To say the entire compilation is inerrant in ALL WAYS is too much to say. God is perfect but His creation is not since the fall to sin occurred so we must accept some problems with this magnificent anthology we call the Bible. To subject it to the scrutinies of science is ludicrous. To deny its supernatural origins is moronic when you consider the probability alone of such a work comming down to us the way it has basically pristine.

rmadison

Maybe because of this...

(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html

The church couldn't directly come out and SAY that women were second class citizens, that "weren't worth of life". That had to be "interpreted" into the scheme of things.

Doctor X

Vinnie:

You will think differently when they take you at night and violate your nethers!! REPENT!! You still have time . . . before the coming of the Great Rectal Probe!

Interesting . . . you can frame all religious faith as faith in UFOs or anything else. Take your "non-placebo healing" example . . . please. "If you had faith you would be healed!" Died? Well, you did not have faith!

Thus, if you do not recognize the Bible as inerrant and inspired and all of that . . . well . . . it is YOUR fault. You are not reading it right!

For a small fee . . . I can teach you . . . and tell the UFOs to leave you alone. . . .

Jim:

Look carefully at what your language reveals.

This becomes an ipse dixitbecause you do not support it. Furthermore, others CAN and have demonstrated how unharmonious the texts are. Thus, methinks you start by declaring a false premise to support the rest of your argument.

Your use of "" does not go unnoticed--it is a "poisoning of the well." It implies that, ipso facto, if contradictions exist they must be minor--only use nasty critics pay attention to such triffles!

On the contrary, ENTIRE TEXTS that are contradicted by history and science rather removes the "" from the issue!

Two ways: if it agrees with your opinion, it is canon. If you can make it disagree with a rival's, it is DEFINITELY canon! There are some good references on the formation of canon from Fortress Press. If you need them, I can get the particulars.

Another false premise: you assume they were inspired. As I have noted in a post to you someplace there is no tradition of inspiration in the texts as you would have it. "Inspiration" is an apology to support a text:

Furthermore, a "non-inspirational" motivation is found in the texts. Mt and Lk "correct" Mk when they disagree with him--cannot have Junior "led up" by "the Spook"--Junior could not be led by anything!

What? Junior walked on water because he was trying to avoid the idiotic disciples? Too harsh . . . need to fix that.

You would have to argue that whatever "inspired" Mk changed its mind when it got to Lk and Mt!

Now you are free to this:

just understand why it is not scholarship.

--J.D.

Jim Larmore

Very interesting!! This is an eye opener to say the least. I must say that there are canonized statements which show prejudice against women too, however not to this extent. I guess we could assume that the ones making the decisions to put in or not to put in statements like these thought this was over the top acceptance wise. However if this was an actual dialogue which occurred between Jesus and Peter I feel it should have been put in. But thats my opinion and you know what they say about opinions.