Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 11-29-2011, 03:01 PM

What is the current state of Bible textual inerrancy. Any credible apologists?

Diogenes the Cynic · 11-29-2011, 06:25 PM

Never mind. Just realized you were asking about textual inerrancy.

Doug Shaver · 11-30-2011, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

What is the current state of Bible textual inerrancy. Any credible apologists?

I have almost never seen any argument at all for inerrancy, never mind a credible one.

In general, so far as I can tell, inerrantists just presuppose inerrancy and think it a sufficient defense if they can conjure up a response to any argument for errancy.

tanya · 11-30-2011, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

What is the current state of Bible textual inerrancy.

Thank you jgoodguy, in my opinion, this is a useful question. I don't have an appropriate response, for my source is not "current", but "old".....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Henry, discussing (Blue letter bible) Mark 1:1

I. What the New Testament is—the divine testament, to which we adhere above all that is human; the new testament, which we advance above that which was old. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, v. 1. 1. It is gospel; it is God’s word, and is faithful and true; see Rev. 19:9; 21:5; 22:6. It is a good word, and well worthy of all acceptation; it brings us glad tidings. 2. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the anointed Saviour, the Messiah promised and expected. The foregoing gospel began with the generation of Jesus Christ—that was but preliminary, this comes immediately to the business—the gospel of Christ. It is called his, not only because he is the Author of it, and it comes from him, but because he is the Subject of it, and it treats wholly concerning him. 3. This Jesus is the Son of God. That truth is the foundation on which the gospel is built, and which it is written to demonstrate; for is Jesus be not the Son of God, our faith is vain.

Here is the original, Alexandrian version of Mark 1:1

Codex Sinaiticus:

αρχη του ευαγγελιου

Nothing whatsoever about Jesus as "Son of God".

Matthew Henry is referring not to our oldest extant copy of Mark 1:1, but rather to a Byzantine version:

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

In between these two extremes, we also have a third version, the Hort-Westcott (Codex Vaticanus?) version

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου

Before one can discuss inerrancy, one needs to determine which of these three versions is the accurate "word of God".

The related question, also fascinating, is how one can explain our possession of three distinct versions of the same text. One regrets the absence of a proper revision history of this important text.

jgoodguy · 11-30-2011, 07:06 AM

A quick google comes up with this:

Quote:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) -- An evangelical apologist's characterization of one biblical verse has called into question his entire 700-page book and his belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, with two respected theologians saying the matter demonstrates that it is not sufficient to affirm biblical inerrancy in principle without also affirming it in detail.

In "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach," Mike Licona presents a defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, arguing that Jesus' resurrection must have been literal.

But the passage at issue is Matthew 27:51-53: "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

Licona, a former apologetics coordinator at the North American Mission Board, writes, "It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel." The bodies of many holy people, Licona suggests, were not literally raised to life.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, commended Licona's "masterful defense" in his book of the resurrection of Christ. "This is a very serious scholar making a very serious case for the fact that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead -- and that this event is historically documented and accessible to the modern historian."

But, Mohler said, dehistoricizing Matthew 27:52 "is calamitous and inconsistent with the affirmation of biblical inerrancy."

"It is not enough to affirm biblical inerrancy in general terms," Mohler wrote at albertmohler.com Sept. 14. "The integrity of this affirmation depends upon the affirmation of inerrancy in every detailed sense."

In the book, Licona acknowledged the weight of his argument, stating, "If some or all of the phenomena reported at Jesus' death are poetic devices, we may rightly ask whether Jesus' resurrection is not more of the same."

Mohler said Licona asked exactly the right question, but in giving the wrong answer he "handed the enemies of the resurrection of Jesus Christ a powerful weapon -- the concession that some of the material reported by Matthew in the very chapter in which he reports the resurrection of Christ simply did not happen and should be understood as merely 'poetic device' and 'special effects.'"

Dehistoricizing a seemingly incidental event in the biblical record "may seem to be a relatively minor issue, but it is in fact very important," Norman Geisler, distinguished professor of apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in California, said.

Geisler, in three open letters to Licona accessible at normangeisler.net, compares the matter to the Evangelical Theological Society's 1983 expulsion of Robert Gundry, who also dehistoricized the Gospel record. "Since Mike Licona is a member of ETS, it follows that his view is inconsistent with the ETS stand on inerrancy."

Other than that, it appears the textual inerrancy debate has mostly died out.

Sheshbazzar · 11-30-2011, 08:04 AM

The innerrantists have a real problem on their hands with any defense of Matthew 27:51-53. as being an infallible scriptural account of a real happening.
Right now they are simply paying it lip service, in a vain attempt to hold together their claims of textual infallibility. But are far from being able to come up with any reasonable apologetic explanation able to reconcile its implications with the rest of the Bible's clear statements regarding both the timing, and the manner of the Resurrection. For example, If these 'many saints' actually rose from the dead, J-S would not be 'the firstfruits of them that slept'.(1 Cr 15:20-23) and men are NOT "appointed to die once..." (Heb 9:27)
(The texts are very confused in their presentation of this Matthean resurrection- did it take place following the earthquake on the afternoon of his death? or did it take place three days latter, and after his Resurrection? depends on which version, or how one prefers to interpret the matter.)

Of course this is of little consequence to the majority of the worlds christians, whose belief systems and creeds do not require such tight and slavish adherence to some certain text, which as tanya illustrates so well above, is really not recoverable.

It all comes down to being a self-created problem endemic and exclusive to the Fundamentalist lunatic fringe, whose leaders in long making of bombastic and dogmatic proclamations regarding the absolute authority and infallibility of their texts, have managed to effectively paint themselves into a dead-end corner where they now either must huddle indefinitely and become increasingly irrelevant and ridiculously marginalized, or make a clean break from the dogmatism and claims of textual infallibility.
-which is a somewhat different matter than the concept of -overall Scriptural infallibility-, that being the belief that the Scriptural promises will not fail, irregardless of any weaknesses in the transmission of, or tamperings of texts, or of ignorant dogmatic institutions and manipulations of men.

Regarding the OP, a credible inerrantist apologist is an oxymoron.

.

11-29-2011, 03:01 PM	#1
jgoodguy Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 400	What is the current state of textual inerrancy? What is the current state of Bible textual inerrancy. Any credible apologists?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-29-2011, 06:25 PM	#2
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Never mind. Just realized you were asking about textual inerrancy.

11-30-2011, 08:04 AM	#6
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The innerrantists have a real problem on their hands with any defense of Matthew 27:51-53. as being an infallible scriptural account of a real happening. Right now they are simply paying it lip service, in a vain attempt to hold together their claims of textual infallibility. But are far from being able to come up with any reasonable apologetic explanation able to reconcile its implications with the rest of the Bible's clear statements regarding both the timing, and the manner of the Resurrection. For example, If these 'many saints' actually rose from the dead, J-S would not be 'the firstfruits of them that slept'.(1 Cr 15:20-23) and men are NOT "appointed to die once..." (Heb 9:27) (The texts are very confused in their presentation of this Matthean resurrection- did it take place following the earthquake on the afternoon of his death? or did it take place three days latter, and after his Resurrection? depends on which version, or how one prefers to interpret the matter.) Of course this is of little consequence to the majority of the worlds christians, whose belief systems and creeds do not require such tight and slavish adherence to some certain text, which as tanya illustrates so well above, is really not recoverable. It all comes down to being a self-created problem endemic and exclusive to the Fundamentalist lunatic fringe, whose leaders in long making of bombastic and dogmatic proclamations regarding the absolute authority and infallibility of their texts, have managed to effectively paint themselves into a dead-end corner where they now either must huddle indefinitely and become increasingly irrelevant and ridiculously marginalized, or make a clean break from the dogmatism and claims of textual infallibility. -which is a somewhat different matter than the concept of -overall Scriptural infallibility-, that being the belief that the Scriptural promises will not fail, irregardless of any weaknesses in the transmission of, or tamperings of texts, or of ignorant dogmatic institutions and manipulations of men. Regarding the OP, a credible inerrantist apologist is an oxymoron. .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.