Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 08-04-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What I would like to know is what evidence leads some Christians to become inerrantists?

Well, I used to be one, and I don't remember evidence having anything to do with it. As I recall, it was an article of faith that the Bible was divinely inspired, and it seemed to follow logically that if God inspired the Bible, then it must be free of error.

When it occurred to me that it would be good to have some evidence for divine inspiration, I went looking for it. When I couldn't find any, I stopped believing in inerrancy.

Calilasseia · 08-04-2007, 12:13 PM

I once asked a group of Christians the question "if the Bible was written by human beings, how can we be sure errors didn't creep in? Humans are fallible after all?"

The answer I got was this: "The original writers were guided by the Holy spirit, therefore they were prevented from making errors".

Yes, it's an evasion of epic proportions. After all, there are far more important things that could have warranted this kind of attention than the writing of a book - the abolition of slavery (why did we have to wait until the 19th century for that idea if it was such a good thing?), the prevention of large-scale bloodshed and misery in wars, the fact that we had to wait until the 20th century before we acquired medical science and conquered numerous fatal diseases ... just three instances of areas where divine intervention to give us these gifts 20 or so centuries earlier might have been very welcome, but which apparently were too trivial for God to deal with because his ghostwritten autobiography was more important.

BALDUCCI · 08-04-2007, 06:41 PM

I agree with the position stated by gstafleu, and some of the posts on this thread are unnecessarily sophisticated. Its not as if the fundamentalist position is scholarly or theologically sound. They dont start by analysing the evidence and then reach a position. The position is reached first, for political, not religious, reasons, and then the evidence is either distorted to fit the position, or it is simply ignored, if at odds with the position. Its the way Bush and Blair presented the case for invading Iraq. The "intelligence" was invented around the decision.

Joan of Bark · 08-06-2007, 02:06 AM

Of course, inerrantists can also use interpretation when it suits them, as it does every other believer in the Bible.

Cege · 08-06-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What I would like to know is what evidence leads some Christians to become inerrantists?

Well, I used to be one, and I don't remember evidence having anything to do with it. As I recall, it was an article of faith that the Bible was divinely inspired, and it seemed to follow logically that if God inspired the Bible, then it must be free of error.

When it occurred to me that it would be good to have some evidence for divine inspiration, I went looking for it. When I couldn't find any, I stopped believing in inerrancy.

Ditto.

robto · 08-06-2007, 08:35 AM

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy claims that, although only the autographs are inerrant, the versions we have are highly accurate:

Quote:

Article X

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

This, of course, is not susceptible of proof, and it still leaves some wiggle room. But, in my experience, inerrantists rarely if ever play the "not an autograph, so not necessarily correct" card.

ninewands · 08-06-2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

I once read something by St Augustine, where he argues that the Bible absolutely must be inerrant. If it isn't then it isn't perfect like God. If there is even one error then the possibility exists that there are other errors.

Someone who is interested might be able to find it. ???

stuart shepherd

I think not.

Toto · 08-06-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by St. Augustine

It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

A word to the wise there, is afdave listening?

stuart shepherd · 08-06-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninewands

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuart shepherd

I once read something by St Augustine, where he argues that the Bible absolutely must be inerrant. If it isn't then it isn't perfect like God. If there is even one error then the possibility exists that there are other errors.

Someone who is interested might be able to find it. ???

stuart shepherd

I think not.

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ine..._Salvation.htm

Quote:

Inerrantists believe that every word in the Bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven. That makes perfect sense, on one level. If one could indeed know that everything in the Bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the Bible says, and live forever.

St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:

The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true.--St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28

.

Dear Ninewands,
How about the above information? Is it close enough to what I wrote from memory?
stuart shepherd

notapadawan · 08-06-2007, 07:41 PM

I would say emphatically "Yes".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2007, 12:13 PM	#22
Calilasseia Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Liverpool, UK Posts: 1,072	I once asked a group of Christians the question "if the Bible was written by human beings, how can we be sure errors didn't creep in? Humans are fallible after all?" The answer I got was this: "The original writers were guided by the Holy spirit, therefore they were prevented from making errors". Yes, it's an evasion of epic proportions. After all, there are far more important things that could have warranted this kind of attention than the writing of a book - the abolition of slavery (why did we have to wait until the 19th century for that idea if it was such a good thing?), the prevention of large-scale bloodshed and misery in wars, the fact that we had to wait until the 20th century before we acquired medical science and conquered numerous fatal diseases ... just three instances of areas where divine intervention to give us these gifts 20 or so centuries earlier might have been very welcome, but which apparently were too trivial for God to deal with because his ghostwritten autobiography was more important.

08-04-2007, 06:41 PM	#23
BALDUCCI Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: scotland Posts: 365	I agree with the position stated by gstafleu, and some of the posts on this thread are unnecessarily sophisticated. Its not as if the fundamentalist position is scholarly or theologically sound. They dont start by analysing the evidence and then reach a position. The position is reached first, for political, not religious, reasons, and then the evidence is either distorted to fit the position, or it is simply ignored, if at odds with the position. Its the way Bush and Blair presented the case for invading Iraq. The "intelligence" was invented around the decision.

08-06-2007, 02:06 AM	#24
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Of course, inerrantists can also use interpretation when it suits them, as it does every other believer in the Bible.

08-06-2007, 07:41 PM	#30
notapadawan Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Lancaster, CA. Posts: 96	I would say emphatically "Yes".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.