Steven Avery

And if so, that still gives no logical consistency to developing a methodologies which create and enforce errancy, and then using those very methodologies of 'evidence' for errancy.

Alternate conclusion: many men would rather serve self than listen to God.

Steven Avery

This sounds like an agreement that the walls did come down, itself a very nice scriptural confirmation, but a dating concern based on something where you say the timing was different than the scripture ?

mens_sana

The walls, quite massive ones, date from the Middle Bronze Age, and at the end of that period the entire city was abandoned. There may have been plague, for entire families were found in some of the tombs. There also may have been an earthquake, some foundations were tilted, and subsequent fire. The walls were destroyed, then eroded. The city was sparsely resettled in the 2nd half of the 15th century, with no walls, and remained that way until well into the Iron Age. The biblical account says the city was reoccupied and fortified by Hiel the Bethelite during the time of Ahab (early 9th century BCE).

Thus, during the period assigned to Joshua, the city had no walls and was inhabited only by a few squatters. The city of Ai had also been long abandoned, which may explain its name, which means "ruin."

Helpmabob

Hi Doug - You mentioned Shakespeare first. His comedies are about as funny as toothache these days, but biblical meanings remain relevant. I would not argue at all that the authors of the Bible were infallible, only the text that they produced through the leading of the Holy Spirit largely is.

Amaleq13

I'm not particularly fond of Bill's works but I still recognize and appreciate much of the humor used in them. AFAIC, your claim on that score is without merit. In addition, "biblical meanings" are primarily relevant to believers but, also AFAIC, no more relevant to non-believers than any other ancient text containing "wisdom teachings".

Sven

Are you kidding me? Which methologies are you talking about? Why are there even methologies necessary - the default position is, as I explained, errancy. So if an apparent discrepancy is discovered, why does one need a methology instead of simply using parsimony and take it as indeed being an error (since errors are expected)?

Oh, a new variant of the "no-true Scotsman/Christian" fallacy. Why I am not suprised?
If god is omnipotent, why doesn't he simply change or add to the text to explain a problem someone sees in it?

jakejonesiv

If the scriptures are really inerrant, and God has indeed preserved his word pure and unadulterated, then name that inerrant text. What manuscript, what number, what collection or museum is it contained in? Appeals to the "original autographs" won't do, because there are none extant. God didn't preserve them!

If then, as I suspect you will be forced to admit, all of the existing manuscripts are errant how do you derive inerrancy from errancy?

Will you claim, oh they are 99% the same or 99% accurate. But 99% isn't 100% and 100% is required for inerrancy.

Maybe you will retreat form inerrancy to some lesser standard that allows for a few mistakes, a "limited inerrancy" if you will.
You might say, oh, we don't know exactly what was written, but no major doctrines are affected. That the Bible is perfectly free of error only on matters of moral, spiritual and religious truth. But this won't do. A simple reading of Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" puts the lie to that notion.

So, how do Christians derive inerrancy from errancy? Is the Holy Ghost whispering in the ear???


Jake Jones

mdarus

This is denied by the Chicago Statement:
They thought of that issue.

I am not sure that it is relevant what is "commonly regarded." It is commonly regarded that Christians are nice people, but as we know, this is often not the case.

mdarus

I think you are asking how Christians can depend on manuscripts and translations that are less accurate than the original? This is a real problem theoretically but becomes insignificant in the actual world. "Inerrancy" is more a method of biblical interpretation than an apologetic to be defended. Those that defend inerrancy, depend on the specifics of biblical revelation to mold their beliefs and (hopefully) behavior. In the real world, the message of the Bible gets through just as well to Christians who do not ascribe to inerrancy.

Those that believe inerrancy are not concerned with your dilemna. They recognize that the translation they read is not an original autograph but they believe they are able to see through the smokey glass well enough to accurately appreciate the garden beyond.

jakejonesiv

Thinking of the issue in this case is worth nothing. They didn't address it, just asserted unsupported denials. Did you miss the circular reasoning? God's work is assumed.

And after reading the watered down definitions of inerrancy that you have posted here and here I wonder why even bother?

I have to ask, what would it take to falsify the theory in your eyes? I guess if it is based on faith, then nothing will do it.

Jake Jones