rhutchin

OK. However, even this understates the problems that are involved. Translation is basically an art, not a science. Understanding that which one translates into their own language is necessarily problematical even if a person does what Carrier describes. In fact, Carrier is introducing biases that may not be relevant to understanding the Bible given the interweaving of the NT with the OT concepts in which words take on meanings unique from that which a purely secular education would prepare a person to understand. In other words, a historical-critical methodolgy described by Carrier is not worth that much (but then people have been arguing this point all over the place).

Johnny Skeptic

So is it your position that all of the millions of Christians who do not believe that the Bible is inerrant, some of whom are at this forum, will go to hell? The Bible can easily be revised by skeptics, taken to some remote jungle regions, and used to convince at least at few people that the revisions are "the real thing." Logically, no writings that can easily be changed can be called "inerrant." You are trying to create a God who appeals to your emotions.

Consider the following:

http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/inerrancy.htm

One of the most noted scholars of the twentieth century, F.F. Bruce (who has written numerous books and widely acclaimed commentaries on the New Testament), was not an inerrantist. Neither was the noted author C.S. Lewis. As a JW and in the early years of my Christianity, I considered F.F. Bruce’s "lack of faith" to be a result of the "devil putting doubts in his mind." However, working in the field of cults has taught me to be objective and consistent in considering evidence, even if it contradicts cherished beliefs. I am no longer afraid of the devil, and believe that God is big enough to allow us to use our minds to weigh the evidence. Apologetics is a worthless endeavor if we do not apply it to our own beliefs. I do not believe God wants us to be stupid or cult-like in our approach to information.

Therefore, though I do not believe in inerrancy, I believe the Bible teaches the basics of orthodoxy, such as the Trinity, eternal punishment, salvation by grace, the soul, the virgin birth, etc. I have faith in God's love for me and for others, and that He is fair. We will know all someday! I do not desire to confront people with these issues, unless they ask me pointedly. Since you have, this is my response. I choose not to be dogmatic, however.

Two books that I recommend for further reading are:

The Canon of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger, Oxford University, 1987, and A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler, 1986. Though both books attempt to prove the coherency of the Bible and Geisler attempts to illustrate inerrancy, I look between the lines to what they are leaving out. Metzger's book is especially scholarly and I respect him.

Consider the following:

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/joll...formed_vi.html

Darren says:

The doctrine of inerrancy, however, is a particular view of inspiration, modern in origin, that goes far, far beyond the Reformers (and the Fathers, and the historical church, for that matter). I reject it wholesale, while still maintaining the high view of Scripture's infallibility.
This is a common view from the proponents of the non-inerrancy view.

In interacting with this view, rather than hitting it head on I like to understand what it is that about inerrancy that it's opponents are reacting to. My guess is that most non-inerrantists agree with James Orr's definition of inerrancy:

It is urged...that unless we can demonstrate what is called the inerrancy of the biblical record down even to its minutest de�*tails, the whole edifice of belief in revealed religion falls to the ground. This, on the face of it, is the most suicidal posi�*tion for any defender of revelation to take up.
I've heard other versions of the Orr hypothesis. One time I asked a guy who had recently graduated from seminary if he believed in inerrancy. He took a piece of paper and wrote out a sentence that went something like this - "I live fore miles from here." He asked me if that was an inerrant sentence and I answered that he had obviously misspelled the word "four." He said that his sentence was true, but it was not without error and so it is with the Bible.

Another example is the time Bruce Metzger visited us in seminary. He may be the foremost New Testament scholar in the world - he has led the teams that have given us the UBS Greek New Testament and has written all kinds of stuff on the text of the New Testament. I made the mistake of asking him in class if he thought the bible was inerrant. He said "of course not." The bible is full of errors, for instance, it uses bad grammar at times.

In each of these situations, from Orr to Metzger, the opponents of inerrancy were using a technical definition of inerrancy that even inerrantists wouldn't use.

I think one of the reasons they think this is because inerrancy is usually linked to the verbal, plenary view of inspiration. The word "verbal" means the words of Scripture, and the word "plenary" means "all." The "verbal plenary" view of inspiration means that all of the words of Scripture are inspired.

This is where things get a little tricky. One of the things we inerrantists are commonly charged with is that we believe in the dictation view of inspiration. The dictation view is that the writers of Scripture were mere secretaries, mindless transmitters of the words of God. There are those who hold to this view, but most inerrantists do not hold the dictation view of inspiration.

Most of us hold to a view of organic inspiration. This means that God inspired the writers in such a way that the words were fully God's and fully theirs. He made use of their personalities, cultures, and experiences in inspiring them to write His word, yet in such a way as to render His word to be error free.

This is important because it leads to the crux of the matter. There is a difference between objective inerrancy and subjective inerrancy. The inerrant view is that the bible is subjectively inerrant, not objectively inerrant. A couple of examples might help. When a biblical writer says that the sun rises is that objectively true or subjectively true? Modern scientists would say that the sun doesn't rise, it circles around the earth. Objectively speaking, the sun doesn't rise. But, to the biblical writer observing the sun in the morning and evening he would say that it rises and falls. It appears to him to rise and he inerrantly reports what he saw. Similarly, in Matthew 13:31-32 Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. Some have pointed out that there are seeds which are smaller than the mustard seed. But, Jesus was speaking of farmers and the seeds they would plant and it was the smallest seed they would plant. Again, he is not making a technical, scientific statement.

rhutchin

No. Just recognizing the difficulties that exist.

Creationists are merely pointing out the shortcomings of evolution. The quality of the argument, not the quantity of people arguing the point, is what matters. You know, "A million flies..."

rhutchin

If a person does not take the Bible to be inerrant, how could he understand what it said? Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think that they will go to heaven because they belong to a certain church, got baptized, spoke in tongues, do good things, etc. It is not just believing that the Bible is inerrant. It is discovering that which the inerrant Bible says and believing it.

Finally, a lot of effort goes to determining what the original scriptures said and weeding out the mistakes. That does not prevent people from taking the Bible to remote regions (or any place, for that matter) and claiming that it says things that it does not.

rhutchin

This may be one of your problems. By definition, Christians are those who believe that Jesus Christ is God. JWs do not believe this.

Johnny Skeptic

But not necessarily the ORIGINAL Scriptures. Why should anyone believe that 2 Peter 3:9 was part of the ORIGINAL Scriptures? Why would a God who wanted hundreds of millions of people to die without telling them about the Gospel message be interested in preserving the original Scriptures? Are you not aware that the Bible can easily be revised, taken to some remote jungle regions, and passed of as “the real thing” at least some of the time? Certainly no writings that can easily be revised and passed of as “the real thing” at least some of the time qualify as being inerrant. The claim that the Bible is inerrant is fraudulent. Many Christians are aware of this. The Secular Web has about 376 articles on inerrancy. I will enjoy debating inerrancy with you. I will refer to many of the Secular Web's articles, and I will use some of my own arguments as well.

Amaleq13

Your beliefs about the Bible do not constitute the "underlying context of the Bible". They constitute the underlying context of your argument.

rhutchin

Maybe it would be better to say that, within the Bible itself, it states that it is the inspired work of God who moved men to write the things that He wanted recorded.

Here is one attempt to explain this--

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2466

rhutchin

As far as we are concerned, that which we have can be assumed to be the original Scriptures. If not, then why debate inerrancy?

rhutchin

As far as we are concerned, that which we have can be assumed to be the original Scriptures. If not, then why debate inerrancy?

So, pick one (1) issue, start a new thread, and explain what is errant.