Ray Moscow

I think that was John Wesley: http://www.imarc.cc/buletins/wesleyq.html

I don't recall such a statement from Augustine, but I haven't read everything he wrote, either.

What you quoted above is pretty close, though.

stuart shepherd

Thanks Ray,
There are probably several people who have had similar thoughts on Biblical inerrancy. If you find one error there may be more. How can it be God's word if there are errors?
stuart shepherd

Dargo

That why many of us ex-fundies lost our faith rapidly when we finally conceded the Bible wasn't inerrant. How can you trust a bumbling screw-up god? It makes a lot more sense just to give up on the whole thing.

Rich Oliver

I immediately think of the day Jesus died, was it the day of the Passover meal (John) or was it the day after (Synoptics)? How do the fundies explain that?

Ray Moscow

I've debated that very point with a few people.

Basically the argument either goes in circles, or else they argue that there were two Passover meals that week or some such.

There is never any resolution.

The Sabbath vs the "special Sabbath" usually comes up in the same debates.

Ray

Julian

Although I am not qualified to speak out about how fundamentalists think, I will offer the following observation in order to reconcile the various Augustine quotes. It would seem to me that when we speak of errors, we must differentiate between literal errors and interpretive errors.

The first kind is where the typical fundamentalist reveals himself to be a fool. He takes the bible as literal truth (up to a point, as I am sure that even he does not believe that he is an actual sheep, for example) and must therefore hold that all sentences must be true in all ways. This position is entirely indefensible and no more time should be wasted on such.

I suspect that Augustine was somewhat smarter than this. He rightly says that the scriptures are not accurate scientific writings and anyone who uses them as such will be considered ridiculous. I agree. I think that he is talking about a deeper truth, a revealed truth about life and death, about salvation, about divine purpose, about all such matters not contained within the realm of science in his day. About such matters it can naturally be assumed that the bible cannot be incorrect. This, of course, opens the door to another problem, that of diverging interpretations.

Julian

Cheerful Charlie

Fundamentalism was derived from a series of books called the Fundamentals of Christianity. These books claimed indeed, the bible must be taken as inerrent in its most basic claims.

CC

Johnny Skeptic

Would any inerrantists like to make a case for their version of inerrancy?

Constant Mews

I believe Dave has been pointed to the good Doctor from Hippo before. Dave ignored him.

notapadawan

I will in the next couple of days.