Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 02-04-2006, 01:56 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4inerr92.html

Excerpts from 'Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures,' by Dave Miller

"Inspiration" refers to the origin of the Bible, i.e., that it is "God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16). Several terms are used to describe the nature of this inspiration. "Plenary" means "full" or "complete," and refers to the fact that inspiration was completely adequate to accomplish the task of giving God's will to man in written form in all its parts. "Verbal" means that divine superintendence extended to the verbal expression of the thoughts of the writers. "Infallible" means that the Scriptures never deceive nor mislead. "Authoritative" means that the Bible is binding on all people and that all people will give an account for how they lived in light of its teaching.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BIBLE INERRANCY

The purpose of this article is to discuss the concept of inerrancy. "Inerrant" means "wholly true" or "without mistake" and refers to the fact that the biblical writers were absolutely errorless, truthful, and trustworthy in all of their affirmations. The doctrine of inerrancy does not confine itself to moral and religious truth alone. Inerrancy extends to statements of fact, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. The biblical writers were preserved from the errors that appear in all other books.

[Johnny: That is of course mere unprovable rhethoric.]

The original Hebrew and Greek autograph copies of the Bible were inerrant. Certainly the copies of copies which have come down to us contain errors common to the craft of the copyist as do all English versions. However, with diligent study, we can ascertain the original words of the inspired writers.

[Johnny: But most certainly not as Miller said “wholly true, or without mistake.�?]

Consequently, the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the biblical text in our day as well--insofar as the Bible has been accurately translated.

Inerrancy is fundamental to the doctrine of biblical authority.

[Johnny: If so, it is a loser.]

Packer wrote, "Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used... in the way that God means Scripture to be used." If the Bible contains mistakes, then it is unreliable as a true guide to matters of salvation. If mistakes exist in one part, mistakes may just as easily exist in another part. If the Bible is a mixture of truth and error, then it is like any other book and simply not deserving of any special attention.

[Johnny: Agreed.]

If the doctrine of inerrancy is not true, then the Bible lacks the very criteria and credentials necessary for authenticating its divine origin. Human beings would be incapable of distinguishing between it and all other religious books which seek acceptance by men (e.g. the Koran, Book of Mormon, the Vedas). If the biblical writers demonstrate incompetency and fallibility in matters of ordinary knowledge where uninspired humans can check their credibility, then their infallibility in all other areas is discredited. As Archer noted, "If that revelation is to come in a usable and reliable form... it must come in an inerrant form."

[Johnny: Agreed, but James Holding has basically said “The Bible does not have to be inerrant for my theology to work, but I believe that it is inerrant.�? Of course, Holding most certainly does believe that the Bible is inerrant regarding the Resurrection.]

Since many books claim divine origin, we human beings must be able to recognize whether a book is in fact the word of God. Our reasoning faculties must be sufficiently competent to consider the evidence of inspiration and inerrancy, applying the law of contradiction and other self-evident rules of logic in order to ascertain whether the Bible is consistent with a supernatural origin. If the Holy Spirit is responsible for what the biblical writers wrote, and if the Bible contains errors in historical details, then the Holy Spirit is the author of error. If the Scriptures are not inerrant and completely trustworthy, then God himself is equally untrustworthy.

[Johnny: But it is most certainly not incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove a negative. Rather, it is incumbent upon Christians to reasonably prove a positive, in this case, that the Bible does not contain any errors. Like many other fundamentalist Christians, Miller is trying to bait skeptics by attempting to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. While no one could disprove a man’s claim that he has a flying pig, if he does have a flying pig, if he wishes to prove to dissenters that he has such pig, all that he has to do is to produce it.]

In order to hold the conviction that the Bible is the word of God, one must also hold that the Bible is inerrant--for such is the claim made throughout the Bible for itself. Numerous passages explicitly affirm inerrancy in all apostolic utterances, including both what to say and how to say it (Matt. 10:17-20; Mk. 13:11; Lk. 12:12; 21:12-15; Jn. 14:16-17,26; 16:12-13; Acts 1:5,8). Jesus gave his stamp of approval to the entirety of the Old Testament, even down to the "jot and tittle" (Matt. 5:18).

[Johnny: Rather, the book of Matthew “says�? that Jesus said that. Of course, the anonymous writer did not claim that he heard Jesus say that, or even that his “evidence�? was any better than third hand or fourth hand.]

THE EVIDENCE OF INERRANCY

Since the Bible claims to be inerrant, what proof exists to justify such a claim? No book but the Bible has weathered the perpetual assaults of infidels and skeptics in their unceasing efforts to document errors and contradictions within its pages. Despite these relentless attacks, the Bible has consistently been vindicated and demonstrated to possess the unequaled characteristic of internal harmony, accuracy, and consistency.

[Johnny: Regarding “No book but the Bible has weathered the perpetual assaults of infidels and skeptics in their unceasing efforts to document errors and contradictions within its pages,�? as I said previously, “…….it is most certainly not incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove a negative. Rather, it is incumbent upon Christians to reasonably prove a positive, in this case, that the Bible does not contain any errors.�?]

Examining specific examples of the Bible's unparalleled accuracy demonstrates its inerrancy. Such an undertaking is expansive, but the investigation is made easier by classifying alleged discrepancies according to three types.

(1) The first category, the Bible's historical and geographical credibility, has been consistently validated in every case where sufficient knowledge is available to modern investigation. For example, Hodge and Warfield noted that the New Testament alludes to the names of some 30 different people, between 40 and 50 countries, about the same number of foreign cities, and 36 Syrian and Palestinian towns. The great majority of these have been eventually identified, vindicating the Bible's strict attention to accurate detail.

Lewis identifies 44 Old Testament and 17 New Testament persons for whom inscriptional and coinage archaeological confirmation exists with an additional 11 cited in literary sources for a total of 63 biblical figures historically authenticated. McGarvey aptly summarizes the massive amount of confirmatory evidence corroborating biblical inerrancy:

Whether its writers speak of their own or of foreign lands, they always speak with faultless accuracy, so that their angus-eyed critics for two thousand years have not been able to detect them in an error. This accuracy extends not only [to] the relative location of places, and to the points of the compass, but to the most minute details, even to the relative elevations of places mentioned in the narratives.

(2) A second category is the Bible's internal harmony. Skeptics have long charged that the writers contradict one another. Yet, once again, in every case the writers have been exonerated by a more careful examination of the biblical text. The alleged contradictions between the inspired writers (particularly the synoptic writers) turn out to be supplemental information concerning the same event which, when put together, forms a cohesive, harmonious whole; or two different events are being described. Hodge and Warfield conclude, "It is not rash to declare that no disharmony has ever been proved between any two statements of the New Testament."

(3) A third category of inerrancy is the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Objections to biblical inerrancy in this regard may be summarized as follows:

... quotation appeals to the sense, not the wording, of a previous document and appeals to it for a definite and specific end; any dealing with the original is therefore legitimate which does not falsify the sense in the particular aspect needed for the purpose in hand.

[Johnny: Even if I conceded those claims for the sake of argument, Miller still loses because the odds are most certainly no better than 50/50 that God is good is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and plans to send everyone to hell. This is my favorite argument, and it is the argument that I have found to be the most effective argument when dealing with Christians.]

mdarus · 02-04-2006, 03:03 PM

Johnny:
Some thoughts about inerrancy:
1) It is not what it sounds like on the face. Even those who believe most in inerrancy give room for lots of things that critics may identify as "errors." Textual variations are permitted by definition as are different points of view of gospel writers and phenominological languat such as "the sun stood still."
2) It is not important for Christians to prove inerrancy. Inerrancy is not a necessary belief. It is more a hermeneutical principle. The reason those who study the Bible seriously as a way to guide their life find inerrancy important, is so they can gain insight through specific words and phrases. Some beliefs and even doctrines depend on the meanings of specific words, the tense of a verb, or whether a noun is plural or singular. For these ideas to mean anything, it is necessary to believe that it is possible to correctly understand what God has revealed as true. When inerrancy becomes a method of interpreting the Bible instead of just a doctrine to be defended, it becomes more understandable and possibly less a threat to the skeptic.

Toto · 02-04-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdarus

. . . When inerrancy becomes a method of interpreting the Bible instead of just a doctrine to be defended, it becomes more understandable and possibly less a threat to the skeptic.

Excuse me, I can't let this pass. Why do you think that inerrancy is a "threat" to the skeptic? To most skeptics, inerrancy is such a patently ridiculous position that it is an all-too-convenient way of bashing religionists.

And when you say that inerrancy is a method of interpreting the Bible as opposed to a doctrine to be defended, do you mean that there might be some value in interpreting the Bible using an invalid methodology? (E.g. - using the Bible like the I Ching, randomly opening it, chosing a verse, and free associating? Or counting the numeric values of the letters? Or looking for hidden patterns? Or some other pseudoscientific method?)

Or are you saying that Biblical interpretation does not depend on objective truth? Is it just a spiritual exercise and we are not meant to assign any truth value to it?

hatsoff · 02-04-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by some guy

Inerrancy is fundamental to the doctrine of biblical authority.

That's it in a nutshell. A lot of people believe that to admit the Bible has errors is akin to admitting Christianity is flawed. This is not the case. That doesn't mean one must not believe the Bible is inerrant; for it may be. But there is no logical reason for doing so, and thus no treatise or apology can explain it. Conversely, admitting the Bible does contain errors is no admission to errors in God's Word, nor Christianity itself.

mdarus · 02-04-2006, 05:48 PM

Toto said:

Quote:

Excuse me, I can't let this pass. Why do you think that inerrancy is a "threat" to the skeptic? To most skeptics, inerrancy is such a patently ridiculous position that it is an all-too-convenient way of bashing religionists.

You are right. It would only be considered a threat if this was a real debate about inerrancy. It is more likely that it is a baited invitation by a skeptic on a comfortable topic. However, the skeptic will be surpised to learn that thinking people also believe in inerrancy correctly defined and understood.

Quote:

And when you say that inerrancy is a method of interpreting the Bible as opposed to a doctrine to be defended, do you mean that there might be some value in interpreting the Bible using an invalid methodology? (E.g. - using the Bible like the I Ching, randomly opening it, chosing a verse, and free associating? Or counting the numeric values of the letters? Or looking for hidden patterns? Or some other pseudoscientific method?)

No, none of these. These are not the usual alternatives to interpretation based on inerrancy.

Quote:

Or are you saying that Biblical interpretation does not depend on objective truth? Is it just a spiritual exercise and we are not meant to assign any truth value to it?

Nope. Not saying that either. Inerrancy is a little corner of the Chrisitan landscape. It is doomed to be misunderstood in the context of this forum. Your first comment was the most insightful. It is an easy strawman.

sharon45 · 02-04-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Conversely, admitting the Bible does contain errors is no admission to errors in God's Word, nor Christianity itself.

Since these both assertions were created by the bible itself, there is no real explaining away the blatant errors in christianity and in a supposed god's word presented by the bible.

hatsoff · 02-04-2006, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharon45

Since these both assertions were created by the bible itself, there is no real explaining away the blatant errors in christianity

What "blatant errors in Christianity"?

sharon45 · 02-04-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

What "blatant errors in Christianity"?

One being matthew 11:1-6 as I've started a thread with.

hatsoff · 02-05-2006, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharon45

One being matthew 11:1-6 as I've started a thread with.

That's not even an error in the text, much less in the religion itself!

Thomas II · 02-05-2006, 05:05 AM

Personally I think that after centuries of people being told by the Catholic Church that either they believed without question OR ELSE (meaning WE KILL YOU), people just assumed they HAD to believe that EVERYTHING was okeydokey, even if it was for good meassure...

"Oh,so you don't believe THAT passage of the Holy Book,uh mister?...
"What ELSE is it that you don't believe?"
"Maybe you should come with us to the castle and tell us ALL about it, you wise guy you!" (slap on the head)

"WAIT!...Oh,THAT passage?...But it is MY favorite!!...In fact I can't even think about any passage not being my favorite!!...ALL is my favorite!!"

"Hmmm...Are you sure...mister?" (slap on the head)

"Oh,yes!!...Oh,yes!!!...ALL!!..."

"Ah!...That's better....Let's just keep it THAT way,uh?(slap on the head)

You know,something like that...

02-04-2006, 01:56 PM	#1
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Why do some Christians assume that the Bible is inerrant? http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4inerr92.html Excerpts from 'Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures,' by Dave Miller "Inspiration" refers to the origin of the Bible, i.e., that it is "God-breathed" (II Tim. 3:16). Several terms are used to describe the nature of this inspiration. "Plenary" means "full" or "complete," and refers to the fact that inspiration was completely adequate to accomplish the task of giving God's will to man in written form in all its parts. "Verbal" means that divine superintendence extended to the verbal expression of the thoughts of the writers. "Infallible" means that the Scriptures never deceive nor mislead. "Authoritative" means that the Bible is binding on all people and that all people will give an account for how they lived in light of its teaching. THE IMPORTANCE OF BIBLE INERRANCY The purpose of this article is to discuss the concept of inerrancy. "Inerrant" means "wholly true" or "without mistake" and refers to the fact that the biblical writers were absolutely errorless, truthful, and trustworthy in all of their affirmations. The doctrine of inerrancy does not confine itself to moral and religious truth alone. Inerrancy extends to statements of fact, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. The biblical writers were preserved from the errors that appear in all other books. [Johnny: That is of course mere unprovable rhethoric.] The original Hebrew and Greek autograph copies of the Bible were inerrant. Certainly the copies of copies which have come down to us contain errors common to the craft of the copyist as do all English versions. However, with diligent study, we can ascertain the original words of the inspired writers. [Johnny: But most certainly not as Miller said “wholly true, or without mistake.�?] Consequently, the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the biblical text in our day as well--insofar as the Bible has been accurately translated. Inerrancy is fundamental to the doctrine of biblical authority. [Johnny: If so, it is a loser.] Packer wrote, "Only truth can be authoritative; only an inerrant Bible can be used... in the way that God means Scripture to be used." If the Bible contains mistakes, then it is unreliable as a true guide to matters of salvation. If mistakes exist in one part, mistakes may just as easily exist in another part. If the Bible is a mixture of truth and error, then it is like any other book and simply not deserving of any special attention. [Johnny: Agreed.] If the doctrine of inerrancy is not true, then the Bible lacks the very criteria and credentials necessary for authenticating its divine origin. Human beings would be incapable of distinguishing between it and all other religious books which seek acceptance by men (e.g. the Koran, Book of Mormon, the Vedas). If the biblical writers demonstrate incompetency and fallibility in matters of ordinary knowledge where uninspired humans can check their credibility, then their infallibility in all other areas is discredited. As Archer noted, "If that revelation is to come in a usable and reliable form... it must come in an inerrant form." [Johnny: Agreed, but James Holding has basically said “The Bible does not have to be inerrant for my theology to work, but I believe that it is inerrant.�? Of course, Holding most certainly does believe that the Bible is inerrant regarding the Resurrection.] Since many books claim divine origin, we human beings must be able to recognize whether a book is in fact the word of God. Our reasoning faculties must be sufficiently competent to consider the evidence of inspiration and inerrancy, applying the law of contradiction and other self-evident rules of logic in order to ascertain whether the Bible is consistent with a supernatural origin. If the Holy Spirit is responsible for what the biblical writers wrote, and if the Bible contains errors in historical details, then the Holy Spirit is the author of error. If the Scriptures are not inerrant and completely trustworthy, then God himself is equally untrustworthy. [Johnny: But it is most certainly not incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove a negative. Rather, it is incumbent upon Christians to reasonably prove a positive, in this case, that the Bible does not contain any errors. Like many other fundamentalist Christians, Miller is trying to bait skeptics by attempting to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. While no one could disprove a man’s claim that he has a flying pig, if he does have a flying pig, if he wishes to prove to dissenters that he has such pig, all that he has to do is to produce it.] In order to hold the conviction that the Bible is the word of God, one must also hold that the Bible is inerrant--for such is the claim made throughout the Bible for itself. Numerous passages explicitly affirm inerrancy in all apostolic utterances, including both what to say and how to say it (Matt. 10:17-20; Mk. 13:11; Lk. 12:12; 21:12-15; Jn. 14:16-17,26; 16:12-13; Acts 1:5,8). Jesus gave his stamp of approval to the entirety of the Old Testament, even down to the "jot and tittle" (Matt. 5:18). [Johnny: Rather, the book of Matthew “says�? that Jesus said that. Of course, the anonymous writer did not claim that he heard Jesus say that, or even that his “evidence�? was any better than third hand or fourth hand.] THE EVIDENCE OF INERRANCY Since the Bible claims to be inerrant, what proof exists to justify such a claim? No book but the Bible has weathered the perpetual assaults of infidels and skeptics in their unceasing efforts to document errors and contradictions within its pages. Despite these relentless attacks, the Bible has consistently been vindicated and demonstrated to possess the unequaled characteristic of internal harmony, accuracy, and consistency. [Johnny: Regarding “No book but the Bible has weathered the perpetual assaults of infidels and skeptics in their unceasing efforts to document errors and contradictions within its pages,�? as I said previously, “…….it is most certainly not incumbent upon skeptics to reasonably prove a negative. Rather, it is incumbent upon Christians to reasonably prove a positive, in this case, that the Bible does not contain any errors.�?] Examining specific examples of the Bible's unparalleled accuracy demonstrates its inerrancy. Such an undertaking is expansive, but the investigation is made easier by classifying alleged discrepancies according to three types. (1) The first category, the Bible's historical and geographical credibility, has been consistently validated in every case where sufficient knowledge is available to modern investigation. For example, Hodge and Warfield noted that the New Testament alludes to the names of some 30 different people, between 40 and 50 countries, about the same number of foreign cities, and 36 Syrian and Palestinian towns. The great majority of these have been eventually identified, vindicating the Bible's strict attention to accurate detail. Lewis identifies 44 Old Testament and 17 New Testament persons for whom inscriptional and coinage archaeological confirmation exists with an additional 11 cited in literary sources for a total of 63 biblical figures historically authenticated. McGarvey aptly summarizes the massive amount of confirmatory evidence corroborating biblical inerrancy: Whether its writers speak of their own or of foreign lands, they always speak with faultless accuracy, so that their angus-eyed critics for two thousand years have not been able to detect them in an error. This accuracy extends not only [to] the relative location of places, and to the points of the compass, but to the most minute details, even to the relative elevations of places mentioned in the narratives. (2) A second category is the Bible's internal harmony. Skeptics have long charged that the writers contradict one another. Yet, once again, in every case the writers have been exonerated by a more careful examination of the biblical text. The alleged contradictions between the inspired writers (particularly the synoptic writers) turn out to be supplemental information concerning the same event which, when put together, forms a cohesive, harmonious whole; or two different events are being described. Hodge and Warfield conclude, "It is not rash to declare that no disharmony has ever been proved between any two statements of the New Testament." (3) A third category of inerrancy is the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Objections to biblical inerrancy in this regard may be summarized as follows: ... quotation appeals to the sense, not the wording, of a previous document and appeals to it for a definite and specific end; any dealing with the original is therefore legitimate which does not falsify the sense in the particular aspect needed for the purpose in hand. [Johnny: Even if I conceded those claims for the sake of argument, Miller still loses because the odds are most certainly no better than 50/50 that God is good is not an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and plans to send everyone to hell. This is my favorite argument, and it is the argument that I have found to be the most effective argument when dealing with Christians.]

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

02-04-2006, 03:03 PM	#2
mdarus Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 196	Johnny: Some thoughts about inerrancy: 1) It is not what it sounds like on the face. Even those who believe most in inerrancy give room for lots of things that critics may identify as "errors." Textual variations are permitted by definition as are different points of view of gospel writers and phenominological languat such as "the sun stood still." 2) It is not important for Christians to prove inerrancy. Inerrancy is not a necessary belief. It is more a hermeneutical principle. The reason those who study the Bible seriously as a way to guide their life find inerrancy important, is so they can gain insight through specific words and phrases. Some beliefs and even doctrines depend on the meanings of specific words, the tense of a verb, or whether a noun is plural or singular. For these ideas to mean anything, it is necessary to believe that it is possible to correctly understand what God has revealed as true. When inerrancy becomes a method of interpreting the Bible instead of just a doctrine to be defended, it becomes more understandable and possibly less a threat to the skeptic.

02-05-2006, 05:05 AM	#10
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	Personally I think that after centuries of people being told by the Catholic Church that either they believed without question OR ELSE (meaning WE KILL YOU), people just assumed they HAD to believe that EVERYTHING was okeydokey, even if it was for good meassure... "Oh,so you don't believe THAT passage of the Holy Book,uh mister?... "What ELSE is it that you don't believe?" "Maybe you should come with us to the castle and tell us ALL about it, you wise guy you!" (slap on the head) "WAIT!...Oh,THAT passage?...But it is MY favorite!!...In fact I can't even think about any passage not being my favorite!!...ALL is my favorite!!" "Hmmm...Are you sure...mister?" (slap on the head) "Oh,yes!!...Oh,yes!!!...ALL!!..." "Ah!...That's better....Let's just keep it THAT way,uh?(slap on the head) You know,something like that...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.