John the Atheist

Polycarp, thanks for the posts, especially something from Bede. I haven’t heard from him in awhile, and wished he was still around.

But I think you and Bede see things differently than Nomad. When someone asks you about inerrancy, you just come out with it by acknowledging the “Bible has errors in it.” Bede just did the same. With the 120101 post you referred me over with Nomad, it has him stating that Polycarp can speak for himself, and him saying: “I assume you asking about the source of possible errors in the Bible.” Bold type for emphasis. There is a big difference in one acknowledging errors, and one who still hasn‘t found any. The posts I find from him always use “presumed contradictions” or “possible” of the many of the other words he picks from. He quotes a three paragraph version of what is his take on inerrancy, and people can access it by looking at his 120101 post with the link you provided. Even at the very end of the last paragraph of the quoted material provided it doesn’t acknowledge any errors, only that “There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.”

Whether there is or isn’t inaccuracies shouldn’t be that hard to admit to most. There is no maybe about it. A simple scripture comparison such as the Ezra Nehemiah pericopes, it’s not difficult for many to see the major contradictions. But with some believers and this includes the posts I’ve read from Nomad, he hasn’t ever stated or admitted the bible has errors or contradictions in it, only that it “may” have some, but that he has never seen any offered up yet(that includes the Ezra, Nehemiah pericopes), but if it were to have some errors, it wouldn‘t matter to him anyway.

John

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]</p>

Nomad

First it was Dennis... now it is John the A. Sigh. Well, let's put this nonsense to bed, shall we?

Am I a Biblical inerrantist?

From my post to John the Atheist in the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000132&p=" target="_blank">THE BIG QUESTION</a>:

Originally posted by Nomad, September 10, 2000:

Nuff said.

In the future I hope others will be willing to address my arguments, rather than caricatures and straw men. If they do not like my arguments, that is cool. But do not try and say I am or believe what I clearly do not.

Nomad

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

John the Atheist

You are speaking from what Christians in general speak of concerning inerrancy. For your view, from page six of the “Big Question” archives of Existence of God:

Nuff said, eh?

John

Nomad

Dear John

I am not an inerrantist in the sense that I believe everything in the Bible must be 100% accurate or literal. I even told you directly that I would not care, for example, if Luke and/or Matthew got their genealogies wrong. I also told you that the Church has never treated the Bible as inerrant in the sense that everything in it must be 100% accurate or literal (see for example the quotation from Augustine's On Church Doctrine.

Quite honestly, I do not see how I can make this any plainer to you, as you appear to have formed your opinion about me, and you will stick with it regardless of the evidence. How "fundamentalist" of you.

Nomad

P.S. To call Meta a fundamentalist, or an inerrantist, is simply laughable. Anyone who even glanced at his <a href="http://www.webspawner.com/users/apologete2/modelsofrevelation.html" target="_blank">webpage</a> would realize that such an accusation is absurd. How did you you ever form these opinions about him, me, or Bede in the first place?

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Haran

JoA, Hello.

There are different thoughts on inerrancy. There is the minority Christian view that you seem to understand (i.e. there are absolutely no errors in the Bible). However, there is a view that many fundamentalists (some/many of the most hardcore scholars and laymen) hold, namely that *the originals* were inspired and inerrant.

This theory allows for the textual corruption that has taken place through out the centuries and therefore also some discrepancies. What these fundamentalists contend is that the core message of Christianity is intact and that none of these variations cause any significant theological problems.

Inerrancy aside, there are still problems with us laymen attempting to point out supposed discrepancies. There were several "problems" in the list you presented that really are not problems to begin with if one knows the original languages. And, yes, knowing the original languages *is* valuable to criticism of the Bible...

Here is one example for your list:

Ezra 24. The children of AZMAVETH, forty and two.
Neh' 28. The men of BETH-azmeveth, forty and two.

There really is no discrepancy here, only two different wordings. "BETH" in Hebrew simply mean "House/House of" Azmeveth. The phrases "children of" and "men of" can be used almost interchangeably. Many times the *men of* Israel are referred to as the *children of* Israel.

There are other similar examples within this list that work themselves out in Hebrew, especially names with minor spelling differences. There are many name changes in the Bible and some of the name differences between Ezra and Neh. may be due to this fact (e.g. Abram / Abraham).

As for the numbers, I'm not sure I can give any good answers for the seeming discrepancies there except that Hebrew letters were used for numbers. Since letters can get mixed up, the problems may simply be due to textual corruption over time.

As for any earth-shattering, theology-rending problems, I see none here to significantly frustrate any Christian.

Haran

John the Atheist

Nomad,

I have not called Meta or Bede an inerrant. Don’t bother to come up of quotes with me stating such because I haven’t. I asked a question. I asked Polycarp have you ever seen any of the apologists ever acknowledge any that were offered up without putting weasel words in? How about MetaCrock, Nomad, or Bede?

The reason I asked this is because of my past experiences with you. It’s quite obvious with Polycarp, and with the quote he provided with Bede they are definitely not inerrant. With them it’s easy to see from their own words why they wouldn’t be considered an inerrant. They simply acknowledge it as having errors, and has “downright mistakes aplenty” as Bede put it. You have yet to acknowledge any found, only that it wouldn't matter to you if it did have some, so maybe your position would be best described as “undecided” unless you’ve modified it some since BQ. While you state you don’t identify as an inerrantist in the sense that I believe everything in the Bible must be 100% accurate or literal which is fine with me, but from all of my posts with you, everything that has been offered up thus far hasn’t been considered a “real contradiction” to you including the Ezra/Nehemiah texts. I know it doesn't matter to you even if it were a contradiction or error, but why do you say none of these qualify for a contradiction as you said in the BQ?

P.S. To call Meta a fundamentalist, or an inerrantist, is simply laughable.

Tsk, Tsk...(waving finger back an forth.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but can you do any better than this! Quotes please.

John

John the Atheist

How do, Haran,

There are different thoughts on inerrancy. There is the minority Christian view that you seem to understand (i.e. there are absolutely no errors in the Bible). However, there is a view that many fundamentalists (some/many of the most hardcore scholars and laymen) hold, namely that *the originals* were inspired and inerrant.

Yep, I’m aware of theologians, quite a few of them who will tackle this problem that the originals were inspired and inerrant, but they cannot buttress one iota of evidence for this. No serious credible historian would argue from this position, but a theologian can use it, since it’s like you say, a faith thing. After all, there are no originals to make such a claim.

What these fundamentalists contend is that the core message of Christianity is intact and that none of these variations cause any significant theological problems.

I don’t think it is just the fundamentalists who will argue that the core message of Christianity is still intact. As far as what the core message of Christianity is, I can only guess that most still consider the virgin birth to be a part of it, and think Jesus was indeed God. This along with agreeing with Paul by saying the Resurrection is essential, and if it didn’t happen, their faith is in vain. So long as Christians convince themselves of this; then, they should have a highway to heaven and that’s really all that counts. Nothing in this world matters. But even when the parallels are done with Gospels, one sees the same pattern of sloppiness, and even setting aside inerrancy, it wouldn’t stand up today in any court of law. It would be thrown out, unless the jurors on the trial were all Christians who had more faith than facts.

Inerrancy aside, there are still problems with us laymen attempting to point out supposed discrepancies. There were several "problems" in the list you presented that really are not problems to begin with if one knows the original languages. And, yes, knowing the original languages *is* valuable to criticism of the Bible...
Here is one example for your list:
Ezra 24. The children of AZMAVETH, forty and two.
Neh' 28. The men of BETH-azmeveth, forty and two.
There really is no discrepancy here, only two different wordings. "BETH" in Hebrew simply mean "House/House of" Azmeveth. The phrases "children of" and "men of" can be used almost interchangeably. Many times the *men of* Israel are referred to as the *children of* Israel.
There are other similar examples within this list that work themselves out in Hebrew, especially names with minor spelling differences.

I think language differences would only at best, account for a couple. As far as the spelling differences, as I stated in my header post, some with minor spelling differences might not need to be highlighted. Sometimes I highlighted them; other times not. Nor did I make it a source of contention with the “men” and “children” and didn’t bother to highlight it. So, with your latest count, Haran, what are we looking at? A couple or even a handful down, and about 50 more to go? I welcome anyone to quote from any text with any language, be it Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic or many of the countless English translations to straiten this mess out. Call it lack of faith, but I don’t see it happening.

As for the numbers, I'm not sure I can give any good answers for the seeming discrepancies there except that Hebrew letters were used for numbers. Since letters can get mixed up, the problems may simply be due to textual corruption over time.
As for any earth-shattering, theology-rending problems, I see none here to significantly frustrate any Christian.

If letters for numbers would account for some of the seeming discrepancies then; anyone from the camp who acknowledge God had anything to do with what once was a inerrant text--should start to question his choice of languages, as well as his omniscience, for letting it get in the shape it is today.

Thanks for the post. BTW, pleased to meet you, and I'll c-ya around.

John

Metacrock

Meta =&gt; First of all, this whole concept of "Weasel words" is itsself a weasely concept. It's not part of actual logic, either formal or informal, and it's largely a subjective notion that is wholly at the descrition of the user. Moreover it is usually an excuse based upon the fact that the person making the accuzation is not expert enough in any sort of academic parlance to know when he has hold of a real argument or when his leg is being pulled. Insecure in his own knowledge he lashes out against any sort of verbabe which leaves him puzzelled.

Meta =&gt;YUP, that's right. It would be laughable. I'm not a fundie, I never claimed to be one. That's not my thing, I've been a liberal since the 1980s and that's all I ever claim to be. So I really have to ask, so what? What's the big deal with this? You speak as though fundamentalism is the only valid posiition. You do know it isn't right?

Meta =&gt;Any better than what? You are the one making the error!

Metacrock

meta =&gt;I think you are right in saying that Bede and I are both more liberal than Nomad, and in fact I think I'm more liberal than Bede, although i don't claim to speak for him.

My own views on inerrency and inspirtion are complex, (not "weasel worsds") but what one might call complex. A good basis in understanding my view, if anyone cares, can be found in Avery Dulle's book Models of Revelation

Here is a link to my page on this subject showing my views as recorded on my site.

<a href="http://www.webspawner.com/users/apologete2/modelsofrevelation.html" target="_blank">http://www.webspawner.com/users/apologete2/modelsofrevelation.html</a>

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Hey! North Texas! NOt only are you fellow Texan, but a fellow North Texan! this calls for a speicial show down. I'm big D, I'll meet you in front of city hall at high noon. We can have a show down, then I'll buy you a beer.

In What part of the Northern area of the Lone Star State are you lucky enough to reside?