bigd3862

How do you defend the inerrancy of the bible in areas of scipture
where there are known differences in the source text, such as the
last chapter of Mark?

Assuming that you can credibly answer the 1st question; Why are
these areas of differences in the manuscripts included in the bible
at all? This goes to the reliability of the word itself...

Are these differences just to be taken as a matter of faith???

Finally, how do you answer these questions without being
intellectually dishonest?

This is important because bible scholars themselves acknowledge
these differences and therefore, cannot simply be ignored.
:banghead:

Doctor X

bigd3862:

Welcome to the forums . . . just step over those bodies. . . .

Who is the "you" to whom you refer?

Very few posters here defend inerrancy. Yessss . . . we get the occassional "hit and run" just like the Evolution page gets creationist-hit-and-run posts.

Assuming you refer to those who defend inerrancy, the apology works this way:

The "differences"--note the use of quotation marks!--are minor and do not at all detract from the Teachings and Truth.

If you believe that, I have some wonderful property to sell you . . . plenty of water rights. . . .

Completeness. Here, we change the apology just a mite to restate the "differences" are minor, and then appeal that the overall message is "true" and "consistent" and . . . wait for it . . . there are no contradictions because the message--inspired, you know--is consistent.

Check out some of the threads on contradictions and "uncomfortable" passages--you will have apologists create all sorts of excuses for, say, bears mauling children. I do not have it, but on another board I was "challenged" to "prove" that the NT had contradictions. I chose the birth narratives--linked to two different historical events. I should have chosen the genealogies.

Anyways, the opposition went on for pages trying to get out of it. Credit where credit is due, Richard Carrier provided most of the ammunition.

Finally, she just declared "the birth narratives are resolved."

In a way, that will be the default position of the apologist.

--J.D.

Vinnie

Haven't you ever read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? As this statement teaches, inerrancy applies to the autographs alone!

The modern text is only inerrant in so far as it preserves the original.

Be honest in your response? Just a guess...

Vinie

Vinnie

I got some lovely sea-side property in Vegas!!

Its time to tithe on faith people! And your prayers will be answered if you send donations here:

Vincent Sapone
1030 Merid....



Vinnie

Doctor X

. . . and if their prayers are not answered . . . they did not have enough faith . . . perhaps if they send more money as a demonstration of that faith?

Anyways, back to the original point, I just ran into a poster claiming:

over in another section. Whether he will come here and make this claim remains to be seen.

--J.D.