Johnny Skeptic

By "inerrant," I mean inerrant except for scribal and copyist errors.

Steven Avery

Would not an inerrancy that includes "scribal and copyist errors" always be able to simply claim such an error as an "out" for a verse reading that was uncomforable ?

Should such a belief really be called "inerrancy" if it cannot point to an actual tangible text in any language ? Doesn't that stand language on its head, to claim an errant inerrant Bible ?

Shalom,
Steven

gstafleu

I suspect it is the other way around: fundamentalists assume the bible is inerrant. That doesn't mean that, should the bible be proved errant (as has been abundantly done), the fundamentalists will then de-fundamentalize. They will either just ignore it, or denial it away. So it is not a requirement in the sense of : If it isn't so, we'll give up. It is a postulate. It is a rare (I think) fundamentalist who can be reasoned out of his/her basement position.

Gerard Stafleu

Johnny Skeptic

You can call the belief of inerrancy anything that you wish. The main issue is that if a God inspired the writing of the original Bible, what evidence do you have that the copies that we have today do not contain a lot of important errors? As an example, regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, why do you believe that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves with the belief that they were speaking for God?

Ray Moscow

If one goes by the original "fundamentals of the Christian faith" principles, then of course biblical inerrancy is a core belief:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame..._Christianity:

If one means "fundamentalism" in general, then other nuances are possible.

tjakey

It was when I was a Christian Fundamentalist. Maybe they've changed the rules since then.

Steven Avery

Hi Ray,

Actually this Conference and time was part of the dynamic of retreat from true, tangible inerrancy (the historic Reformation belief) towards an essentially meaningless construct of inerrancy only in an unknown text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worship as Meaning: A Liturgical Theology for Late Modernity By Graham Hughes As Sandeen and others have shown, Warfield constructed a case now recognized as unfalsifiable and thus inoperable: Warfield... phrased his defense of the of the inerrancy of the original autographs in such a way that no further discussion was possible. In retreating to the original autographs, Warfield, whether intentionally or not, brought the Princeton apologetic to a triumphant conclusion. Since in order to prove the Bible in error it now became necessary to find the original manuscripts, War field might have concluded .. by announcing that inerrancy could never be denied . Roots of Fundamentalism British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 - Ernest Sandeen (1970) p.112

This is what occurred during the move towards Niagara and Chicago inerrancy. These conferences were actually a move away from true inerrancy. Note that the errant alexandrian texts had recently become popular. So tangible inerrancy was no longer seen as an option by those who had been so confused by the theories of Griesbach, Westcott and Hort that they took a corrupt text over the pure historic Bible.

Thus came forth Niagara and Chicago "inerrancy".

Shalom,
Steven

Ray Moscow

So, what was the previous biblical "inerrancy"?

It always seems silly to me to argue for the inerrancy of "original manuscripts" that were forever lost.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: Regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, why do you believe that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves with the belief that they were speaking for God? Surely you will agree that innocent but inaccurate revelations are common among the writers of religious books. How can a religious writer be reasonably certain that he is speaking for God? It is my position that fundamentalist Christians typically portray a God who appeals to their emotional needs regarding how they want God to act. If God really wanted people to know about him, don't you think that he would have made written records about him available to everyone, or at least word of mouth records available to everyone?

Doug Shaver

Is it required that a man be single in order to be a bachelor?

Belief in inerrancy is partially definitive of Christian fundamentalism. Most English-speakers, when they call someone a fundamentalist, mean that the person referred to accepts the dogma of inerrancy, among others.