Clouseau

[QUOTE=DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR;4506914]On the contrary, most will decline the offer made.

Johnny Skeptic

No it isn't. In order to make a credible claim that copies are copies, you have to have the originals, and you do not have them.

If the copies of Old Testament manuscripts did not accurately represent the originals, how would you know it?

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. The Bible says in at least two places that it is inerrant. That is an original assertion. He who asserts first must defend first. Skeptics who debate inerrancy are responding to PRIOR claims by Christians that the bible is inerrant.

Are you not aware that there are plenty of Christian web sites that assert that the Bible is inerrant? In those cases, the onus seems to be on those who would prove that there is not mendacity or inaccuracy in the Bible.

May I ask what particular views you are trying to promote at this forum?

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

How do you know this? Have you looked into the future and sat through every case? Amazing...

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

My guess is Universalism, but of course my definition probably don't count since it's the US of A english definition, but it could be the ancient Hebrew and Greek definition as well, who knows?

Clouseau

Why?

Nobody knows. Nobody much cares about that, though.

Clouseau

Not so. Nobody has asserted inerrancy. All that happens is that, if one wants to be accepted as a Christian, one has to accept the Protestant Bible as the final say. If one wants to persuade Christians that they are wrong about something, one has to argue from the Bible. There are no absolutist claims, except from red-neck Yankee fundies.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR;4507498]That's the standard Christian view, as found in the words of Jesus as apparently recorded.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes they have. Consider the following evidence:

Johnny: That was from a recent post at the General Religious Discussions Forum.

http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancyTOC_Gerstner.html

John H. Gerstner

We could compose a book many times the size of this one consisting merely of fervent and eloquent evangelical appeals to the Bible itself as the proof of its own inspiration. Some three thousand times the Bible does make this claim for itself. “Thus saith the Lord” is a veritable refrain of the Scriptures. No book in the history of literature has made such frequent and moving assertions of its divine origin. Because of this remarkable characteristic of the Scriptures many have almost unconsciously concluded that the Bible is the Word of God.

This we believe and later shall attempt to prove is the right doctrine. The Bible is the Word of God; the inerrant revelation from above. It is the Word of God indeed, but not because it says so. Rather, it says so because it is.

How, we ask, would anyone prove the Bible is the Word of God simply because it so often says so? There could only be one basis for accepting Scripture for Scripture’s sake; assertion for assertion’s sake. But what an incredibly naive notion: A thing must be what it says it is. A man must be what he says he is. A book must be what it says it is.

Johnny: Please note the words "assertions" [the author admits that he has made assertions, and wrote a lengthy article in defense of his assertions.], and "It is the Word of God indeed, but not because it says so. Rather, it says so because it is."

Those are only two of many examples that I could post that prove that you are wrong. At any rate, there are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that texts that were written thousands of years ago have been accurately transmitted in their entirety except for scribal errors. Since known and generally agreed upon interpolations abound in historical documents, it is a given that there are many interpolations that are not obvious enough to be known.

In order to claim that the Bible is inerrant, you have to have good evidence what the originals said, including the Old Testament. The Old Testament was originally written much too long ago to make a good case for inerrancy as judged by standards of modern historical research.

Even if the original Old Testament was inerrant, there is no credible evidence which parts of it survived, were copied, and accurately copied many times over thousands of years. It is well-known that many original religious and secular historical documents were lost or destroyed, and that some sole surviving copies were destroyed.

If I have to, I will contact a professor at some major fundamentalist Christian university and get a letter from him stating that he asserts that the Bible is inerrant. A Calvinist college professor would be a good start. Most Calvinists are inerrantists, and I can assure you that most of them will come right out and assert that the Bible is inerrant if you ask them to, and sometimes even if you do not ask them to. I personally know of at least four Calvinists here at the IIDB who asserted that the Bible is inerrant. One is Bible John, who I quoted previously, another was Rhutchin, another was Reverend Timothy Muse, and I forget the names of the other two.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;4507827] Not by the church. The church preaches the gospel, which requires no acceptance or even knowledge of the Bible, and leaves it at that (except for apologia, of course). The church wants no-one as a member who comes to it by any other means. That cuts out fundies, JWs, Catholics, liberals, often Calvinists, whatever. People who try to shove the Bible at others are the enemies of the church because they want mere intellectual conversion, which is useless in producing personal regeneration. Just what they want- someone who thinks he's a Christian, but isn't, is harder to convert than someone who knows he isn't a Christian- and he gives Christians a bad name.

The 'net is full of 'em, so it's no surprise if some post here.