Originally Posted by sonofone

John I have claimed to be both Christian an a non inerrantist.I know you take exception to this and perhaps it is a oxymoron.Or you may just think of me as a moron

In any case, I can not in good conscience say that the bible I hold in my hand has no scriptures at all that are free from error or possible contradiction.Considering our Old testament is derived from the Masorectic Text,as opposed to the Septuagint causes problems to begin with.

Consider the problem with Hebrew 10 vs 5 in comparison to Psalms 40 vs 6 and C I Scofields explanation for the discrepancy.Wherefore when he cometh into the world,he saith,sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,but a body hast thou pepared me;Psa 40 6:Sacrifice and offering thou didst notdesire;mine ears hast thou opened;burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Scofields explanation: This quotation from Ps.40:6 Follows the LXX,with a minor variation,instead of the Hebrew,as do many of the several hundred quotations of the O.T.Found in the N.T.quotations are used in various ways1) Invariably the authors attribute unqualified divine authority the O.T.,in some instances basing their argument on one word Mt 2:15;22:43-45;Jhn 10:34;19:36-37;Rom4:3 etc...(2) The Septuagint is usually employed,as it is here in Hebrews in the same way as an english translation may be quoted today(Mt 1:23cp.Isa 7:14 in LXX)(3)Variations in quotations may originate in the desire to translate the the original Hebrew more accurately than the LXX(1 Cor 14:21:cpIsa 28:11-12 in LXX and Hebrew).(4)Many quotations were not intended to be verbatim,but are paraphrases designed to bring out the meaning or particular application(Gal 4.30:cp.Gen 21.10).(5)Some quotations are a summary of O.T. truth taken from several passages,giving the sense if not the exact words of the original(Rom11.26-27:cp.Isa.59.20-21and Isa27.9).(6)In some cases the quotation is only an allusion and is not intended to be an exact quotation(Rom 9.27:cp.Isa10.22-23).And(7) the Holy Spirit who inspired the O.T. was free to reword a quotation just as a human author may restate his own writings in other words without impugning the accuracy of the original statement(mt 2.6:cp.Mic5.2)The doctrine of plenary inspiration requires only that revelation be expressed without error.

Perhaps this does not represent an example of errancy;however it does show how verses can say different things and yet not be problematic or considered error.

Also a leading atheist Frank Zidler said this (although being sarcastic) The problem for the true believers is this:The Greek version (Septuagint) reflects a Hebrew text more than a thousand years older than the Hebrew text used as the standard for thekjv.Shouldn't we follow the Greek even if it is a translation instead of the Hebrew?It should be noted that the authors of the N.T. when citing the O.T. cited it in Greek resembling the LXX far more often than the Masorectic Textus Receptus.If the LXX was good enough for Jesus,shouldn't it be good enough for the Presbyterians?

Whose says atheist have nothing of value to say.

Lets look at some key differences between the LXX and the MT Where the LXX seems to be superior: Age of Levitical service,MT: Num 4.3,23,30,35,39 the age of the Levitical priest qualified to minister in the Temple was between 30 to 50.MT Num 8.24 the ages between 25 to 50

In the LXX both chps say between 25-50 each time no discrepancy.How many years of famine? 2 Sam 24.13 7 years,1Chr 21.12 3 years.LXX Reads 3 years in both.Notice Luke 3.36 that Cainan is within the lineage of Christ,yet not found in Gen 11.12The LXX does include Cainan agrees with Luke,and many more.

Louis Cappel,Hebrew Scholar says the various readings in the O.T. text and the differences between the ancient versions and the MT convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants,was UNTENABLE.This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of scripture,bitter however as was the opposition,it was not long before his results were accepted by Scholars.

There is even support for the idea that the Talmudic Masorectic Jews intentionally corrupted the MT.

Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho declares:They have altogether taken away many scriptures from the translations effected by those sevnty elders was with Ptolemy and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to be have been set forth expressly a God and man.

So yes I have no problem saying my bible has issues,and no I don't have to stick my head in the sand and say it does not in order to remain a Christian.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean by "which of course is to say nothing at all"?

Based upon what I posted previously, it appears to me that the Bible says in a number places that humans had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible of their own accord, and did exactly what God told them to do, and by implication that God has preserved the originals with the exceptions of scribal and copyist errors.

In my opinion, a loving, rational God would not use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But the main issue it truth, not inerrancy. Copies of the York Times are inerrant, but some of the claims in the New York Times are false. If the story of Adam and Eve is false, it does not make any difference whether or not the original story has been changed.

Originally Posted by sonofone

Inerrancy speaks to error.Here we are not talking about simple misspelling but a change from what was originally spoken which in turn changes what was originally meant or said.This in turn is largely responsible for contradictions.

This is why I am no Inerrantist.Yet as I said in your original post it does not change for me the truth of the overall message,as evidenced by me personally.It is true for me,and to me.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But the main issue it truth, not inerrancy. Copies of the York Times are inerrant, but some of the claims in the New York Times are false. If the story of Adam and Eve is false, it does not make any difference whether or not the original story has been changed.

Originally Posted by Darklighter

That's a REALLY good point.

Originally Posted by sonofone

So has the question now changed or been made broader to is the Bible false? I never admitted to such if this is the case.

Originally Posted by sonofone

This is why I am no Inerrantist. Yet as I said in your original post it does not change for me the truth of the overall message, as evidenced by me personally. It is true for me, and to me.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I got off topic. As far as this thread is concerned, in my opinion, inerrantists have some good arguments that all Christians must believe that God inspired and preserved all of the Bible except, as many inerrantists claim, in cases of copyist and scribal errors.

Regarding my off topic comments, no matter what the worldview, the main issue is whether or not is reasonable to accept it. In my opinion, there are not any good reasons why anyone should become a Christian. If you believe that you have some good reasons why Christianity is a reasonable worldview, please start a new thread and discuss your reasons. If faith is the only evidence that you have, why are you making posts in any thread? If your only intent is to build your own faith, then I must thank you for helping build my faith. If your only intent is to build your faith, why should skeptics help you build your faith by having discussions with you?

Since you have said that you do not have any choice except to remain a Christian, I would like to tell you that I do not have any chioce except to remain a skeptic. Now what is the next step?

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Since you have said that you do not have any choice except to remain a Christian, I would like to tell you that I do not have any chioce except to remain a skeptic. Now what is the next step?

Originally Posted by sonofone

I'm glad you took it there.......

Originally Posted by sonofone

.......for it just goes to show that every post you start goes to this exact same place. Lesson learned for me I'm out.