Johnny Skeptic

If copies of New Testament writings are reasonably accurate, how does that in any way help to make Christianity a valid worldview? If God did not inspire the Bible, is it a given that copies of New Testament writings would have been less accurate than they are?

Roger Pearse

IMHO it does not. Surely the two issues are completely unrelated? If we had photocopies of the author's original copies ('autographs' is the technical term) would this help us one iota in determining whether or not what they *say* is true? I do not think so.

Likewise if the copies are not very accurate, this would not demonstrate in any way that Christianity is untrue, unless it was a critical teaching of Christianity that all the copies *were* identical to the autographs (and it is not, even if you are as fundamentalist as I am).

Unless we have some manner of test for 'inspiration', are vsuch speculative theological statements helpful? IMHO it is invariably a category mistake to confuse issues of inspiration with the question of whether books are copied accurately or not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stuart shepherd

I was a fundie for more than 50 years. My experience has been that the average person sitting in the pew really does not know the Bible. They say they believe every word, every word is the truth from God, the inerrant word of God, etc. But I discovered that they were well versed in several NT Scriptures but that was it.

IMO if we could get the fundies to read the Bible they might figure out for themselves that it is a fable. In my own life that is what happened. I never saw the problems with the Bible until I started studying it intensely.

So accuracy is not the issue IMO. The fundies think it is accurate. If they would ever read it they would discover that the Bible is its own worst enemy.

Stuart Shepherd

Johnny Skeptic

Surely the two issues are completely related in the opinions of inerrantists. Many if not the majority of Calvinists are inerrantists, not to mention lots of other Christians who are not Calvinists. Lee Merrill is an inerrantist. He once told me that if he came to believe that the Bible was not inerrant, he would give up Christianity.

Are you saying that you have spent decades of your life studying Biblical textual criticism without any concern at all for anything except that early New Testament documents were accurately copied? If your answer is yes, that will not convince me that such is the case. If there were contradictions regarding doctrinal issues, there is no way that you would not be concerned with that.

Are you concerned with whether or not Shakespeare's writings have been accurately copied?

Roger Pearse

The question is rather whether they are related in *our* opinions. What others might think is for them to say. (You're mistaken, incidentally)

I think putting words in people's mouths is not helpful, you know. I wrote what I wrote.

Biblical textual criticism bores me, incidentally. My interest is the wider field of classical and patristic textual criticism.

No, although I am of course aware of the issues of the folio and quarto editions. My interest is the transmission of texts from antiquity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

There is no rather about it. You, I, Calvinists, and everyone else comprise "our." Calvinists who are inerrantists, and other Christians who are inerrantists, most certainly do consider textual consistency to be related to the truthfulness of the texts. Would be you like some exmples?

If there were a lot of contradictions regarding doctrinal issues, would you still say that the two issues are completely unrelated?

Mistaken about what?

Why are you interested in classical and patristic textual criticism? Did you become a Christian based partly upon studying classical patristic textual criticism?

Do you believe that God chose copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans? If so, do you believe that God could have used more convincing ways of communicating with humans, such as telepathically or verbally communcating the same messages to everyone in the world?

Roger Pearse

This seems to be either about me personally, or else assertions about others which are mistaken. I don't think that I am very interested in either. Sorry!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

You conveniently did not reply to those arguments.

You conveniently did not reply to that argument.

You conveniently did not reply to that argument.

You conveniently did not reply to those arguments.

You conveniently did not reply to those arguments.

If you do not wish to discuss your personal beliefs, that is your right. However, my assertions about others are not mistaken. I told you that Lee Merrill once told me that if he came to believe that the Bible was not inerrant that he would give up Christianity.

In the other thread, remez said:

Consider the following:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/1997/...es/calvin.html

I am sure that you have heard of Christian apologist Glenn Miller. He is a staunch advocate of Biblical inerrancy. You would not dare to send Miller an e-mail and claim that accurate copying is not related to whether or not Christianity is a valid worldview. Even more so, you would not dare to start a new thread at the IIDB and claim that the accurate copying of major doctrinal issues is not related to whether or not Christianity is a valid worldview.

So, you are completely wrong that my assertions about others are mistaken.

Since you have claimed that the two issues are unrelated, then you should not mind if I quote you in various threads and forums at the IIDB. I will let inerrantists know that you implied that there are not any good reasons for them to be inerrantists.