Solitary Man

Um...none of that logically follows. In fact, millions of Christians already don't believe that the Bible is inerrant - inerrancy is to some a heretical position. You might do well to review basic Christian theology.

Riverwind

Sauron, I think you totally missed the boat. My response was saying that I believe faith can be separated from study, which means that a person of faith can approach biblical studies with the same "clean" slate as anyone else. Your response doesn't seem to take this into account and it therefore merely repeats Peter's concerns about those who cannot separate the two. I also share that concern. A person who cannot separate the two is in danger of accepting or denying something that, at face value, appears to support their faith while in the long run undermining it. There is no reason that people who can separate faith and study cannot have different interpretations of data, is there?

Sauron

Actually, it does follow quite logically

However, my comments were addressed to the subset that identify themselves as "bible believers".

You might do well to read for comprehension.

Sauron

Yes, I understood your point. No boats missed here.

I disagree with that as a blanket statement. It depends upon the particular kind of faith and the level of attachment. If a person is a liberal Christian / deist / etc. then yes - you're probably right.

But if they're a Jerry Falwell / Pat Robertson type, then no - it's highly doubtful they could approach with a clean slate; much more likely they approach with a pre-ordained agenda written in slate.

The question is whether people can actually do that or not. In my experience, it's very unlikely that a person can have a strong faith and also keep it separate from their study of biblical matters. Even for the liberal christians it's hard; it's well-nigh impossible for the conservative, 'bible believer' kind.

There's also the question of what kind of a membrane separates faith from study: is it a wall? Or a semi-permeable membrane that occasionally slips up and lets intruders from the "faith" side sneak over into the "study" side?

Solitary Man

No, no it doesn't.

Not all bible believer are inerrantists.

Oh, nice ad hom. Try again.

Gamera

Peter, I think you're confusing biased researchers with biased data.

All researchers are biased, though some are more biased than others. Detractors have a bias against the historicity of the Christian scriptures, which motivates their research. Doctrinal christians as you call them have a greater or lesser bias for the historicity of these texts.

But you don't have to evaluate their biases to evaluate the validity of their research results.

If your claim is biased scholars should be ignored, then you have just effaced the entire universe of scholarship. All scholars are biased -- that's why they are interested in the subject matter in the first place.

Sauron

Sorry; it does.

That's the definition. And to make things crystal clear, I provided an example of how a bible believer's belief structure is set up. You read too quickly and missed the fact that I was working with a subset of the general set.

Unnecessary. You failed to read for comprehension; I merely pointed it out. You are welcome.

Sauron

False dilemma so early? Let's see:

1. Everyone has bias, so nobody's research is worthwhile.
OR
2. Everyone has bias, so everyone's research is equally valid.

Can you spot the mistakes?

Not true. Some people are simply curious. Being curious about a particular topic is not bias.

Toto

W L Craig is on the payroll of Campus Crusade for Christ. NT Wright is in the employ of the Church of England. They both have very strong ideological and economic and social constraints on their "scholarship" and are extreme examples.

Vorkosigan

If I had a nickel for everything I have learned from fundy whackjob and conservative and believing scholars, I'd be a wealthy man indeed.

The same way they discover whether unicorns and elves actually exist.

Vorkosigan