RobertLW

Absolutely. Can't get into detail right now because I am getting ready to go on a business trip and will not be back until Friday. But I will answer the best I can upon my return.


It is. (Mine is anyway)



It will end up being circular but I do not view it as a problem. Since the Bible (the true word of God) is my ultimate standard of truth (ultimate authority), it must be self-authenticating. Everyone's ultimate standard of truth must be self-authenticating. Example, if your ultimate standard of truth is empirical data, you must use empirical data to justify it. If it is reason, you must use reason to justify it. This is because it is the very top level, you cannot go any further and it must be self-authenticating. If you have an ultimate standard of truth that does not end up being circular I would be more than happy to entertain it.




I will answer this best I can upon my return from my business trip, if you still have this question. Let me know.

Robert

RobertLW

I re-read what you wrote, it is fairly obvious you were talking from personal experience. I apparently had some kind of brain lock preventing me from properly comprehending what you wrote. My mistake, please accept my apologies.



Scribal/copy errors.




Many. Most are the same as you will find on this site. Examples: Harmonization, morality of God, lack of clarity in the Bible, special pleading, blind faith....etc....




I think you are asking "Is the change in my worldview the sole source of my change of beliefs on inerrancy ?" Let me know if I do not answer the question you asked. I would have to say no. I changed worldviews twice prior to believing the Bible to be inerrant. Several things had to happen. I had to change my worldview, I had to fully believe my worldview and then I had to read the Bible with my worldview fully developed.

I will be back on Friday from my business trip and if I have time I will answer what I can. I am also going on Vacation next week and will be back next Thursday. I think that after that, I can spend more time answering questions and will do so, time permitting.

Thanks

Robert

Vinnie

"""""It will end up being circular but I do not view it as a problem. """"""""

I really don't know what to write in response to this that won't get me in trouble with the mods. I'll just stop here.....Down boy...down!

""""""Since the Bible (the true word of God) is my ultimate standard of truth (ultimate authority), it must be self-authenticating.""""""

Why is it your ultimate standard of truth? The money question. Why/how is it more self authenticating then a pile of dog crap or Marcus Borg's The God We Never Knew?

""""""Everyone's ultimate standard of truth must be self-authenticating. Example, if your ultimate standard of truth is empirical data, you must use empirical data to justify it."""""

Actually, I use "reason" because I am stuck with it. Any attempt to counter reason assumes reason by "reasoning" against it. The Babble hardly is analogous to "reason" in this sense.

""""If it is reason, you must use reason to justify it. """"

Reason just is. Any attempt to justify it would require reasoning. AKA using reason to justify itself which is circular. Any attempt to defeat it also is a problem. We are just stuck with it. End of story. I make no further statements or require anything else.

"""""""""This is because it is the very top level, you cannot go any further and it must be self-authenticating.""""""

Why is the Bible at the top level? Did you "reason" to this position? Why?

""""If you have an ultimate standard of truth that does not end up being circular I would be more than happy to entertain it. """"

Yes but we happen to be stuck with reason. We have a bunch of holy books to choose from, however. We could also choose none of them.

At least you admit your entire faith is bult upon a glaring logical fallacy. Couldn't yuo have noted this before our debate?

Vinnie

Sven

First, let me thank you for your long, elaborate answer.

May I ask how did you come to this conclusion? Did you read many books on the subject, studied the bible yourself, or what?

Sorry, I was indeed asking for the former version of "inerrancy". But perhaps you nevertheless have some interesting answers.

As an aside (only a thought, not an argument): Even if it were indeed inerrant in this respect, then it obviously does a very poor job in communicating its message. Just observe the thousands of denominations of Christianity which disagree on so many details.

Which data, please? These ominous data are so far your only real answer to my "Why" question.

So far, you have not justified your presumption. And I don't think that this is a dichotomy.

You misunderstood my question. The point is, the "verity of the authors" simply is not enough to conclude that any book is inerrant. One counter example is sufficient: honest errors.
In the meantime, you "clarified" your argument, from verity -> inerrant to inerrant -> verity.

That is, you harmonized every error you found earlier, regardless if the harmonization was plausible or not. And the "why" is answered by the above: You had to do this to retain your belief, arrived at by so far unexplained data.

Albion

To paraphrase an inerrantist on another board, the argument goes along the lines that if the Bible is literally God's word, then God will have been able to ensure that substantive errors aren't included. The argument is also that if the Bible isn't inerrant even after all the years of Bible scholarship and correction of grammatical and translation errors, then why believe any of it?

Matrix

Not really. I can believe in some thing even though it's not errored.

Really? Maybe the Koran, but the Bible is unique in many ways that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

Your assumption is that God inerrantists believe that the Bible is the only source for God's inspiration. But this is not true of MOST Christians.


"infallible" is not the same as inerrant BTW.

cogito cogito,

Mike

Clivedurdle

As I understand it, language is something that continually changes and evolves as we try to relate to others. Writing is an extremely formal means of communicating humans invented at some point. How and what we write changes, languages become extinct. The punctuation I am using is an invention that has changed and evolved!

If someone posits that an external being has left us an inerant or infallible book, surely the first question to ask is is there something special about the language itself? I understand the Koran does claim this.

If there are any errors or logical mistakes or anything doubtful, doesn't that mean the whole house of cards collapses?

Inerranists must prove their hypothesis of perfection, that their work is better than Mozart or Da Vinci or who ever.

Didn't an early Xian bemoan Paul's poor use of Greek? Any example like that is enough to disprove innerrancy.

dado

i'm still trying to figure out how it is a second-temple era Jewish rabbi was never heard speaking hebrew. or even aramaic...

Yahzi

So in other words, you're reading a different Bible than the one I have.

Well, that would explain a lot.

Fallon

Hi all, it's been a while (that Peanut Gallery thread is still going?)
What is there to differentiate a circular belief in Christianity from a circular belief in Islam, or any other belief system? In other words, if all such belief systems are fundamentally based on a totally subjective circular system (as you seem to be saying) then how can you differentiate between them, especially since once you accept circularity as a fundamental basis for a worldview as okay then you can use that to convince yourself of anything - including 2 + 2 = 5.


Fallon