jakejonesiv

The watered down version of "inerrancy" that is being defend here is simply an attempt to make the theory non falsifiable.

BTW, apologists are always asking for examples. Au_GMark just made up his own commandment. "Do not defraud." Mark 10:19.

This commandment is not found in the Matthean and Lukan parallels.

This isn't even errancy, it is sheer stupidity.

Jake

Steven Avery

Nope. Even the Talmud has a major counter-indication, as does the Tanach have problems with this. You have already demonstrated the truth of what I said above about why I usually don't do this discussion in depth. Too much pre-agenda, too much indoctrination, too much insincerity.

Steven Avery

We discuss this charge on many threads. If you had brought something new or interesting to the table I would have responded. Now, I don't know of any major errors in the Bible, of the questions that are raised that are really substantive, a good portion are alexandrian corruption version stuff, (or the western junque like Jesus getting angry at the request for healing). Such as Gerash, which is, more or less, where I walked into IIDB.

And there also is the absurdity of 'defending' an ethereal 'original autograph' Bible than can change by the hour for convenience.

I am happy to consider the situation with Judas and his death, or other questions, and discuss them, however I find that the problems that come out of the corrupt text I am quite happy to put aside. They are many, they are severe, and they are not my problem, since I have an inspired and preserved Bible, not 200 differing versions laden down with alexandrian scribal and doctrinal corruptions and errors.

Shalom,
Steven

mdarus

Jake,
Mark 10:19 may be a good way to illustrate inerrancy as a method of biblical interpretation. Inerrancy would hold that Mark "accurately quoted" Jesus. The discussion would then focus on why Jesus inserts a comand from Leviticus 19:13 when we expected him to limit himself to the commands in Exodus 20 as he listed commandments. Part of this discussion may be whether Jesus erred in his quotation of Exodus 20. I expect the conclusion would be that in citing commandments, he did not limit himself to the ten we commonly refer to.

Those who do not use inerrancy as a principle of biblical interpretation may come to the same conclusion or they may conclude as you did that Mark must have added it because Jesus could not have been so foolish to make such a goof. However, your assertion that Mark "made up a commandment" is clearly undeffensible since Leviticus 19:13 records that the commandment existed before Mark's gospel.

By the way, the standard for "accurately quoted" in the inerrancy approach is different than modern standards for citing a source. Especially as they move from language to language, if the essential meaning remains intact, it is considered an accurate quote.

Sven

Well, since then denying something is an argument?

Apart from this, this isn't even my argument. My argument is about probing a given document for inerrancy - not about the question if inerrant documents can be written in principle. To the latter I entirely agree!

:huh: Didn't you get my argument at all?

Premise 1: There's an omnipotent being.
Premise 2: This being inspired an inerrant book.
Premise 3: The being wants people to believe that the book is inerrant.
Conclusion: All people believe in in the inerrancy of the book.

Given that the conclusion does not agree with the facts, we have to conclude that one of the premises is wrong. For the sake of argument, I granted that P1 and P2 are right. The only thing left is that P3 is wrong. IOW: God does not want people necessarily to believe in inerrancy. My argument is thus: Why bother trying to convince others of inerrancy?

Sven

What you seem to miss is that usually the arguments goes the other way: Christians claim that the bible is inerrant and because of this god exists.
So either you missed the point or you have fallen victim to another circular argument.

Roger Pearse

I'm not really in this thread, but I must say that I don't recognise such a position. People known to me to have converted to Christianity have followed the following logic:

1. that people consider that the bible is more or less historically accurate -- at least, as much so as any other ancient text. [Which is a position held much more widely than just by Christians, of course].

2. that people come to believe that Christianity is true, in part because of the testimony of the ancient record about its origins but mainly for other reasons.

3. that because Christianity teaches that the bible is not merely reasonably historically sound, but in fact inspired by God, they come to believe for that reason that it is inerrant in the doctrine that it affirms.

The alternative which they lived by before -- to adopt some subset of whatever values those who control the media agenda of the period of history in which we happen to live chose to make 'normal' -- is not compatible with this, of course.

I hope that helps. I'd have thought that this discussion will not benefit anyone unless there is clarity on what is actually believed and by whom!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

Hi Steve,

You make a good point about the errors and corruptions in the manuscripts of the Bible, and the ethereal 'original autograph'. We agree on a number of the basic starting points, but arrive at very different conclusions.

I thought I understood your position, but maybe I don't. I want to make sure. Which of the the following statements do you agree with?

#1 The KJB is the best English translation of the scriptures
#2. The KJB is better than any Greek version.
#3. The KJB was inspired (or reinspired if you prefer) at the time of translation under King James by the power of the Holy Spirit.
#4. The King James Bible is inspired in a manner as good or better than the original manuscripts. God guided the translation.
#5. It doesn't matter what manuscripts the KJ translators worked with. The Holy Spirit in effect guided the translators to produce an inerrant version.
#6. Would the KJB be the same if the translators had no source documents to work with? The Holy spirits guidance was entirely sufficient for producing the KJB.
#7. The KJB is the result of a miraculous intervention by God. (If the answer to this is yes, how do you know?).
#8. The King James Bible is the Word of God, the scriptures.
#9. there is no advantage in knowing Greek or Hebrew, because the KJB is more accurate than any text (extant or recreated by textual criticism) in those languages.
#10. There is absolutely no error in the KJB. No contradicitions, no interpolations, no grammatical or scientific errors. It is completely and absolutely 100% perfect.

Sorry the list is so long. Some of the questions may overlap, but I am trying to see the situation from your view point.

Thanks for the info.

Jake Jones IV

Julian

But you live in the UK. I am pretty sure that there is a huge difference between average British christians and average American christians. Here in the US we are dealing with a population where roughly 50% believes that the bible is to be taken literally, i.e. the flood, 6000 years old and so on. Christians in europe seem as a whole far more relaxed about these matters.

Julian

mdarus

Thank you Sven, that helps some. I agree that the problem is in Premise 3.

1) Belief in the book is probably not the goal. The book is likely a means to the higher goal of belief in the God described in the book. To the extent that belief in the book is beneficial to the primary goal, belief in the book is a good thing. To the extent that belief in the book would obstruct the goal of believing in this God, such a belief would become a distraction.

2) Even though this God wants belief, it does not follow that the inerrant book will necessarily produce universal belief. If some do not believe, it is not evidence that premises 1 and 2 are wrong. Belief may not be something that this God is willing to manipulate in that way.