RobertLW

I agree with you in that any argument about the nature of the text must begin with the text. I use a transcendental approach but that approach is fully based in Scripture, within the Biblical texts themselves. I recognize that you wish to begin with text. My point, and I believe bgic’s as well, is that we do not share an epistemology by which to evaluate the text. In other words, your evaluation of the text is based in the world, mine is based in the Word of God. While you say that you are ready to root your argument in what the Biblical text actually is, it would not appear that you are ready to root your evaluation of the text in the Word of God. This is a very important distinction. While I will deal with whether or not the text substantiates my arguments, I will not do so with a basis of evaluation that is based in the world. I will only do so with a basis of evaluation that is rooted in the Word of God. This is why I believe it important to evaluate and validate/justify our epistemological basis for knowledge. If we can understand each others epistemology then we can understand each others evaluation of the text and come to an understanding of what the text actually is. My "dogma" of inerrancy is fully rooted in the Biblical texts and since it is, there is plenty of room in that "dogma" for the Biblical texts. So I guess you can say that the Biblical texts are the "dogma". By my arguments I am trying to answer the original question of this thread, “Why do you assume inerrancy�.

Robert

doubtingthomas

So in order to prove inerrancy, you use an approach that assumes innerancy?


I know this has been said before by myself and others, but this is entirely circular reasoning. Your only respone to this has been to say that our "ultimate basis for knowledge" is circular as well, but all that proves is that all of us are wrong, yourself included. By this sort of logic the bible could say that Jesus was a married bachelor and still be inerrant.

edit: I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the thread yet, but has anyone explained how knowledge neccesitates god's existence?

jbernier

This thread is about inerrancy. That is what we are discussing. It would be irrelevant - indeed, a red herring - to go off on a bunny trail about other issues.

My definition is hardly arbitrary. It is deeply rooted in the historical traditions of the church, particularly St. Paul. I would argue, in fact, that most of Protestantism has fundamentally misread Paul and this has resulted in a sort of masturbatory, anti-semitic triumphalism. That, however, is another story...

jbernier

No. As I recall (and I cannot find the postings to which you refer because it has been so long ago you said that atheists knew that God exists but denied his existence so that they could go on sinning. That is not a statement about worldviews; that is a statement about a category of people called "atheists." In short, it is an ad hominen on a grand scale.

Not exactly what I said. It is indeed a paraphrase and a very bad one at that.

Epistemologies (a much better word than "ultimate authority") are circular or unwarranted if one tries to make them "ultimate." Which is to say that one logically cannot demonstrate that a given epistemology is correct without reference to either the same or another epistemology. Consequently one is left with having to acknowledge a degree of uncertainty.

Exactly. Hence why I think that the term "ultimate authority" is a philosophically sloppy term.

You are equating "worldviews" with "ultimate authorities." Not at all the same thing. The problem here is that you think in terms of "authority" - which authority do I turn to. Not all worldviews rest upon authority in the sense in which you mean - as an external reference to which one can go for definite and unequivocal answers. If you want certainty become a mathematician 'cause you definitely will not find it in cultural (i.e. worldview) studies or theology.

Yeah, and I am saying that the preoccupation with "authority" is completely misleading and philosophically sloppy.

And they, too, do so erronously.

Yes - because it is more honest to the truth of what the text is and is thus more honest to God. The text never claims inerrancy for itself. Indeed, the text shows signs of not being at all inerrant in the way that LFP Christians (is that similar to the "Real Christians (TM)"? from www.landoverbaptist.com) want it to be. That sense of inerrancy is not derived from Greek or Jewish thought but from certain strands in the Reformation and a reaction against German historicism. It is a thoroughly modern perspective completely foreign to the thought world of the people who produced the scriptures.

Who says that I have no justification for my knowledge? I do indeed. However, justification is not an either/or, a binary. There are levels of justification. And I cannot claim complete certainty abut my position. Neither can you, if you step back for a minute and be honest with yourself. Why? Because we are talking about intangibles here. That is really what I am arguing for: Do not claim certainty where certainty cannot exist.


Here you come to a fundamental problem with inerrancy. I posted this critique before but you simply avoided it. In order to prove inerrancy you must offer an understanding of God before you turn to the text. You then read the text with that understanding determining your reading. Two problems: You are not fully open to what the text has to say because you will ignore or twist everything to fit your prejudice (your prejudgement); you have knowledge of God that comes not from scripture but from your convictions about who God is. The first shackles the text; the second violates the notion that the text is the only source of true knowledge.

No. You, not I, have stated that it is arbitrary.

Because I have not wanted to go on bunny trails. Fine. Here goes. I was trained in the Boasian school of cultural anthropology and it is by this tradition that I have been most strongly influenced. First off, Boasian anthropology has always contained within itself a tension between idealism and materialism; consequently my views tend to be something of a fusion between the two. Beyond that, in good Boasian fashion I would argue one basic starting point that I think more or less self-evident: 1) That all ideas and viewpoints are the products of particular histories (known as "historical particularism." This entails a couple things: 1) Since all ideas and viewpoints are the products of particular histories we can never know anything apart from the histories in which we are located; 2) Since all ideas and viewpoints are the products of particular histories no one else can never know anything apart from the histories in which they are located. This leads to a method: Intersubjectivity. The goal is to enter into dialogue with another subject to relate our historically particular position to their historically particular position. For those who think that this sounds similar to, say, Gadamer, they would be right - although I discovered Gadamer late in my undergraduate career, before I had alreadly formulated the above ideas through my anthropological training.

You will also note that I have left aside the question of the natural sciences; that is, quite simply, because I am not a natural scientist. However, I would argue that in considering the natural world one is still a historically-conditioned subject and one must be fully conscious that one brings a weight of philosophical baggage to one's scientific work. For instance, the scientific method is itself a historically-conditioned conception and one must be aware of that fact. However, being historically-conditioned does not mean arbitrary or subjective to the point of absurdity. For instance, we know that scientific method, as historically-conditioned as it is, can produce meaningful and productive information about the world; I see that everytime I start up my computer, for instance.

This is how I approach the text: As a historically-conditioned subject, not a transcendental set of inerrant data which stand essentially above history. Why? Because, as Christian theology has always said, humans were involved in the production of the text; thus I cannot imagine that the text is somehow qualitatively different from all other human products ever made. Does that mean that I do not accept the notion of revelation? No. It does mean that I recognize that any revelation which God may have imparted to the Biblical writers was given in an intersubjective manner - it was dialogical; the Biblical writers were not possessed by the spirit of God and just become automatic writer a la New Age mediums. They were part and parcel of the revelatory process and cannot be ignored.

And I have argued that one can never be honestly certain about one's first principle.

And you would be wrong.

The line is fuzzy for me because it has been fuzzy historically. If you were get to a Roman Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, an Ethiopian Orthodox, an Anglican and a Presbyterian all in the same room what would you have? Five Christians and five canons.

Neither do I. But I must point out that God's word never gives a list of canonical books.

You can be sure as much as you want. However that does not change the fact that there is still no consensus among Christians on this issue.

Nothing was canonical in the first century. Even the HB canon was not fixed. However, there is good evidence to suggest that it was part of the books Paul would have considered scripture.

Yes. It is misleading to say that I said there was a vast right wing conspiracy

It had deuterocanonical status since the 5th century. It was included in the Vulgate.

jbernier

BGic has, at length, but I do not buy his argument.

blt to go

Sorry about that, RobertLW. In the simplest form, my beliefs have changed from the previous quote to present. When I wrote the first quote I believed in the christian god. I no longer do so.

I would explain further, but you are "predisposed to disbelieve" any claims as to what I believe.

Further, there are a variety of reasons why I do not necessarily respond to the entirety of your posts, but pick and choose certain portions.

1) Style (I do it to BGic, too.)
2) Brevity - I try to get to the heart of the matter.
3) Interest - Some I may not be interested in.
4) Agreement - I do not generally reply to something I agree to.
5) Ignorance - I may not know what concept you are talking about, and need further research in the area.
6) Other - welcome to the world of the internet.

If you feel I am deliberately avoiding an argument because I have no response, feel free to point it out. Perhaps I DON'T have a response! I'm fairly up front with what I believe, know and do not know. (What would the point of lying be? I am primarily here to learn, not to goad, gloat, preen or write a book.)

blt to go

This is because you do not have all of the history, jbernier. Be glad. It was not a pretty history.

It started with RobertLW in a formal debate with Vinnie over whether the bible was inerrant. (I am being deliberately brief, not deceptive.) RobertLW withdrew in the 3rd (2nd?) round out of 5 because he felt the basis of the argument was more important than the argument itself. What a person's presumptions were (and whether they were well-founded) was what the real argument should be.

Then the peanut gallery grew. and grew. and grew.

RobertLW stated, "I presume the verity of the biblical authors," and held onto that belief throughout. Unfortunately, it was difficult (IMO) to get any expounding of that belief.

BGic initially held for a neutral position (either could or could not be inerrant) and then developed a standard for determining inerrancy.

When I applied that standard to a particular contradiction (David's census) I felt it did not hold water. BGic felt it did. (Perhaps based upon our presuppositions.)

We discussed (at length) the Chicago statement of inerrancy.

Out of that peanut gallery, this thread arose, as to "why assume inerrancy?" primarily in response to RobertLW's initial statement that was maintained throughout.

SO. To some extent, jbernier-- RobertLW, BGic and I had previously argued through the text. You simply came onto the scene a little late.

But you do raise a good point. IS one's epistemology the sole determination of inerrancy? Or, as doubtingthomas said, to prove inerrancy, one must first assume inerrancy?

If a document is inerrant, how one approaches it should not make a difference.

An errantist, inerrantist, high school dropout, doctorate degree, protestant, catholic, Jew, Gentile, Greek, Roman, etc. should all review it and say, "yep, that is inerrant."

blt to go

Nope. To be fair, I would simply state, I don't know enough on the subject. Still learning. (Hence the thanks for the link.)

The problem I see, is that it is impossible for me to get out of this "system" (for lack of a better word) of knowledge to determine if there is a greater being or source of knowledge.

I forget the name, but it is the mathmatical principle that one cannot prove the system of mathmatics internally, but only externally. I just cannot get "external" to this world of knowledge.

You used The Matrix so let me expound upon that as an analogy. (Some day there will be a "Godwin's Law" for the Matrix.)

Neo had a "god-sense" that something was not right, the something called the Matrix. But there was no possible way for him, within the matrix system, to determine what was not right, and what "ultimate knowledge" was. It took Morpheus to take Neo out of the system for Neo to realize what real life was. (Again, I cannot get "out" of my system.)

BUT, if you will recall, at the end of the 2nd movie, Neo was able to affect things in the "real world" exactly as he was able to do so in the "matrix." Numerous movie geeks were speculating between the 2nd and 3rd movies as to how this could be. One theory was that the "real world" was simply another computer simulated enviornment to account for human nature's (and arguably artificial intelligence) rebelious nature, and need to fight authority. Neo was just some sort of "ultimate" anamoly that came out of the "actual world" matrix and not the "real world" matrix. So now Neo and Morpheus would need someone else to take them out of the "real world" matrix into the next matrix, the ACTUAL world. But that, TOO, could be a computer simulation, and so on, and so on.

I do have a point other than being odd.

At some point, using the Matrix, we would come to the end, to what was the Actual, Final, real, ultimate world. But how would we Know?

This is similar to the Uncaused cause argument for god. Eventually you reach an Uncaused Cause. But when?

You would state that the system we are within is not enough. There must be some other grounding for knowledge, that being God. Specifically the God of the Bible. But why stop there?

At the end of Revelation we would have a new heaven, new earth, God and us. In that system would there be some other grounding for knowledge, or will that system, internally, be enough for knowledge?

Further, I would note that there would apparently be something "greater" than God, limiting him, which would indicate there is something outside the system of God/man/universe that is grounding that system, which is grounding this system.

Apparently God is limited by Time, logic, and morality. What is the "grouding" of knowledge for these limitations? God's Maker? And what is the grounding for God's Maker? At some point we reach a system in which knowledge is grounded within the system itself.

You would say, not the system of this world. I would state, I don't know.

jbernier

I think that Doubtingthomas is bascially correct here. The issue cannot be decided through philosophical discussions prior to and apart from the reading of the text. It can only be decided through study of the text itself. The topic of this thread is "Why assume inerrancy?" My answer is that assuming such closes oneself to certain possibilities about the text even before reading the text. One determines that one must "resolve" any "apparent" contradictions within the texts or between the texts and the extratextual world. The problem there is "must": The possibility that there are genuine instances in which the text is not describing history as it actually happened is ruled out of court before the text is even consulted. I say that this is bad hermeneutics.

Craigart14

So you believe that something like the different numbers (one pair of each in one verse, seven pairs of clean animals in another) for animals on the ark, for example, could be attributed to a scribal error? How do we account for the two different creation stories of Gen: 1 and 2, which clearly differ in concept? And are you suggesting that all the Bibles we have today are wrong? That there was an original Bible that contained no mistakes or contradictions? What evidence is there for that assertion other than the desire for it to be so?


I don't think I have an "ultimate authority." I have factual data and analysis. Both are discussed openly at all levels of society. The biblical argument for the existence of God IS circular and it IS a logical fallacy, a demonstrable flaw in thinking. To claim that the ORIGINAL version of the Bible, which no one has ever seen, is inerrant is to base one's conclusion on unobtainable, non-verifiable data. It's wishful thinking masquerading as empirical thinking.

Craig