brighid

As continued from the earlier inerrant thread that has been closed - I posted:

Let’s assume for a moment that the original texts were in fact perfect and inerrant. Although the likelihood of this is highly improbable and near impossible! But for arguments sake – say this is the case. The problem therein is that we cannot verify the authenticity, perfection or inerrancy of those original documents. And why, oh why – would the Church be unable to produce those original documents that were practically done in God’s own handwriting? I would venture to guess because they never existed. Also the Bible was not one cohesive book at the time of its creation. It’s not as if God wrote the Bible in one fell swoop, then scatter it’s books to the wind to have them collected over the centuries and reestablished in the form of the copied version of the Bible. That also further leaves in question those books that were left out, destroyed or are found in other versions of the Bible. What was the criteria for deciding what was right and what was wrong and if the Holy Spirit was guiding all the members of the Church – why the discrepancies?
But let’s go back to the assumption of original perfection and the dilemma of the subsequent errant and copied texts. If we do not have the original documents to use to compare against the copied documents we cannot determine which parts of the Bible are elaborations, exaggerations, out right lies or simply misinformation. Therefore, without employing other methods to come to educated conclusions we are left in a serious quandary. What parts should one believe? What parts are not the original words of God? What if this isn’t really what God said, but what man has said and wants? And considering the contents of the Bible and the beliefs and actions one takes in accordance to the rules in the copied version supposedly determine if one will burn in hell for eternity (or simply be separated from God for an eternity) or residing in immortality in the beauties and splendors of Heaven – well one would think that those placing their salvation and damnation upon a copied version of a divinely inspired book would work really hard and use the most reasonable tools available to discern those answers. Instead Christians usually believe that the “core” message is the same because they cannot substantiate the details of these books, even though the quibble over who is a true or untrue Christian based upon the details. The core message cannot be accurately determined if it is muddled in half-truths, historical distortions, misinformation or lies and all of these things cannot be determined by using the Bible and Faith alone. Furthermore that search must be done with the purpose of disproving the theory of inerrancy and perfection for if the text was inerrant than any amount of scrutiny or application of logic, science or reason would repeatedly render the truth of the matter. In fact, I think that process does work but not to the betterment of Biblical inspiration or it’s correctness. It simply proves that there are errors, there are questions that cannot be adequately answered, there are simple and complex contradictions and many instances where the wording of those stories does not fit reality.

All in all, it absolutely irrelevant in the search for truth of the original documents were perfect if the only copies we have are not and cannot be verified for their authenticity or accuracy against those original and perfect documents.

Brighid


And Haran stated that he disagreed with me, but failed to provide any rebuttal to my post.

Haran - if you would be so kind as to respond to the points you disagree with and why.

Thanks,
Brighid

Haran

Sorry, I guess I didn't notice your next post due to all the name-calling posts that were thrown in between by others. I sort of gave up on the thread and didn't mean to "fail" in not responding. I don't see it so much as a contest as an expression of opinion.

Anyway, aside from that, I'd like to thank Michael for what seems to me to be the very unbiased mediating that he did on that thread and on others that I've read.

No problem, but it may take me a while to respond due to work and a general lack of time. Hang in there, please.

Thanks,
Haran

Reactor

You seem awfully sure of yourself. However, I would lean more in the direction of disagreeing with you. The 'core message' (as you put it) can (key word can)be determined, even if these things exist. (and all of them existing, all at once?) I'm yet to find, personally, a theological difficulty in the bible. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if these things did exist, the 'core message' might contain theological discrepancies, like the book of mormon, for example.

What do you think?

CX

I've no real interest discussing "inerrancy" since that entire notion is ridiculous and predicated on magical thinking, however there are a couple issues worthy of note regarding transmission of the Xian text tradition. At issue, it seems to me, is not that there are scribal errors, redaction, glossses etc. in modern texts. We can reasonably well construct what the original texts said to a fair degree of certainty (excluding such things as the "non-western interpolations" and what have you. The current canonical books of the NT are well enough attested by the manuscript evidence to be confident that the "core message" is in tact. The problem rather is of what that core message consists. IN order to understand that it is important to understand how the Xian canon formed and what important non-canonical books have been left out. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Xianity of the empire is not necessarily a good representation of Jesus' actualy ministry, but more the product of Pauline invention, the gentile mission and the cultural imperialism of the orthodoxy in the first few centuries. That is why there are no Arian Xians today.

Jayhawker Soule

I really hate it when I find myself on the same side as Reactor, but you slid from the issue of transcription errors to suggesting a document "muddled in half-truths, historical distortions, misinformation or lies" with remarkable alacrity. If you knew of substantive copying errors, I assume that you would have referenced them. On the other hand, the problem with the Genesis, for example, has little to do with the skill or honesty of the Masoretic scribes.

brighid

Perhaps we best start this discussion with a theist detailing the “core” meaning of the Bible as supported by scriptural quotes and theistic teaching (and whatever else you feel is pertinent.) I would ask that you post a few pertinent quotes and then only the verses and chapters if you feel other are relevant.

I understand Haran. I am busy too and sometimes I have time, and other times I don’t. I didn’t think you were deliberately ignoring me that is why I started a subsequent post. I promise to be patient and thank you for your contribution thus far.

Brighid

Vorkosigan

Hmmm...what is the core message? God's love? The Resurrection? The narratives contained in the four canonical gospels? Or the body of interpretation that constitutes orthodox doctrine? I would argue the last. The are many ways of interpreting what the Bible says. The "core message" seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Michael

Reactor

I used to think a little that way too, that it was in the eye of the beholder, but hearing from other (fairly uneducated and educated alike) Christians I found that the message (the one reinforced by the apostles- through Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, etc) was quite universal. Sure, there are those who interpret the message differently, but they're in far smaller number to the majority who agree wholeheartedly on the core message. When you take someone who knows nothing about the message at all, you tend to find (in pretty much every single case- the odd ones out being the Joseph Smiths for example) the same message is extracted by the reader. That core message would have to be the main points carried throughout the books. That is, the old law, the new law, the messiah, his sacrifice, and what it means for us.

That's my understanding, anyhow.

Tani

even given that it was written inerrantly, the fanciful part of inerrancy has to do with how we can interpret with inerrancy.

i found message utterly not universal, even among the protestant within north america alone, there are a lot of interpretations on how to get redempted, and the different domination are quite unyielding to the "other" interpretations. well, i have to agree, though, that they all agreed on everyone has a need for redemption, but then the universality cease as long as you were ever dare to dig deeper than mere vague notions.

i don't see even with a divine inerrant text from a divine origin can be imperfectly interpreted into your mind and be a divine interpretation. it's strange how the weak link can be ignored, or is there something i am missing here (hint: p -> q, 'q -> 'p)?

Reactor

You've got a strong point there, and I've thought about that at times, too. Still, we don't devinely interpret the message today, and what you might expect from a divine source, might not be what God has in mind. Take the message- it's about responding to God. Even with clouded issues (which you guys seem to have a lot of over there) it's highly difficult to strip Jesus from the picture and the message that we need to respond to God's calling.

Christians know too well about the weak links. They are not ignored. For most of us, we just don't believe they're worth making an issue out of, for the simple reasonings above. It's a take it or leave it issue, and not much we can do will be changing that any time soon. It was going on in the days of Acts, and it's no wonder it's happening today.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Reactor ]</p>