Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have presented historical evidence and documentation, not just an unsupported story to try to shore up the claim that scripture is inerrant, when it clearly isn't.
No, you haven't. You are a career skeptic whose modus operandi is to allege error and contradiction instead of honestly trying to look into 'problem passages.'
Both the contradictions in Matthew's and Luke's date of Jesus' birth and Matthew's contradiction of the other three evangelists gospels that Jesus really wrote two animals (of different size) when entering Jerusalem clearly evidence contradiction in scripture.
Would you like further examples, or just to continue playing your let's pretend with the facts of history and biblical contradictions?
Here you demonstrate your modus operandi by refusing to acknowledge that selection of detail is not contradiction. That Matthew chose to mention the donkey while the other writers did not is not contradiction, but rather choice of details to record.
You cannot understand that very simple thing.
I will not waste my time trying to convince you of something of which you have no interest in being convinced.
Then you are claiming that he really didn't possess divine knowledge, right?
Or the writers of the new testament weren't entirely prone towards accuracy when they reported what Jesus actually said. Either which way, the reality is that the bible is full of crap that never happened. So it's hard to call it inerrant then, that being the case.
269 Wardendresden “ <b><i><font color="red">To be fair, Clear, if a poster believes the originals were inerrant AND they actually were it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that the texts we have ARE the same. It's
Last edited by Clear lens; 08-19-2013 at 11:16 AM..
I noticed my last post did not save correctly (probably my mistake)
#269 Wardendresden “ To be fair, Clear, if a poster believes the originals were inerrant AND they actually were it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that the texts we have ARE the same. It's just with so many, many errors and differences--400,000--and that number came out of the debate between Dr. Daniel Wallace and Dr. Bart Ehrman…
Hi Wardendresden :
I believe you made some very good points. I apologize that I got so very busy that I could not respond to anyone for a while.
1) INERRANCY IN NON-EXISTENT TEXT IS IRRELEVANT
I believe it is possible that original hypothetical autographs were inerrant and later, errors came into them. However, this theory is no more relevant to mankind than theorizing that the original Moon was made of Green Cheese but and later moon rock came to be it’s main characteristic. Both theories involve metaphysics and hypotheticals that are irrelevant and inapplicable to our current situation other than as an article of belief.
Since text from autographs do not exist and cannot BE used to quote in any argument, virtually all debate back and forth in this thread has actually centered on later biblical text and NOT autographical material. One poster quotes from a non-autographical bible as errant and another person counters with non-autographical biblical text. Neither poster quotes from nor is able to use autographical text in their discussion.
Readers cannot find a single quote from autographical material in this entire thread. This is partly why this thread is not referring only to “autographical” material. It cannot even tell us what the autographical material said.
2) ERRANCY AND INERRANCY OUT OF CONTEXT
I think the difficulty for individuals who lift principles out of context and hold a debate regarding that discontexted principle is that discontexted principles cannot make the same sort of sense as when viewed inside it’s original context.
For example, certain arguments tend to be contexted in an artificial “either / or” way that makes debate easier, but it discontext and incorrectly caricaturized both the principle and any conclusion. For example, debates tend to be “Faith versus Works” rather than “Faith and Works” as synergististic principles. Such discontext arguing reveals more about our incessant weakness for arguing, more than they reveal and illuminate the relationship of Faith to Works.
“Inspired Inerrancy” versus “Uninspired Errancy” is a similar type of debate that removes Inspiration and Perfection (or inerrancy) from it’s context. The recent difficulty for a poster in simply answering whether the modern bible is the inerrant word of God reflects the effects of discontexting. If a dogmatist answers that the modern bible IS an “inerrant word of God” then they are unrealistic and irrelevant since the modern bible has obvious errors. If a dogmatist admits that the modern bible is NOT the “inerrant word of God” then this admission distracts and undermines the basis of dogmatism, debate and even a faith that is based upon the book.
Barring a clear answer, I think we can assume that Mike555 believes the modern bible has error (since it was made from material that had error). Thus, the erroneous parts are not the “inerrant word of God”) despite the title of the thread.
How then will this affect belief is one assumes one can “trust" every word of the bible upon which to base their faith, upon which to develop discrete doctrines and upon which one systematize one’s system of belief? It is a distraction and a bother to admit errors.
Either way a dogmatist chooses, without the context of other principles, difficulties arise. However, there are other principles that relieve even the dogmatist from the dilemma of "inerrancy versus errancy" if they will consider them.
3) CONSIDER ADDING CONTEXT
Retaining broader historical context decreases discussional dilemmas. For example, Christians at a level of belief in God and Jesus that is based on a book may find that belief challenged by any defect in the book they base their belief upon.
I have pointed out that the belief in God and Jesus that is based upon a personal revelation from God to an individual that he lives and that Jesus is their redeemer is left undamaged and undisturbed by any defect in the text. Such a personal revelation is relatively undisturbed by defects, not only in the text, but by defects in the Christians pastor; defects in their family; their friends; etc. All other external principles do not destroy a witness of God which is based upon the principle of revelation of God. I believe that in original and authentic religion, Revelation in its’ various forms has always been the central characteristic and the greatest witness within authentic religion in all ages of time.
4) For example : CONSIDER SACRED TEXTS AS TOOLS
Consider, for example, the context of all sacred textual witness in their purpose as tools that witness to mankind of the existence of God and, in varying degrees of clarity, mankinds’ relationship to God and mankinds purpose on earth. If one simply adds such a context, then it does not matter if a text is perfectly inerrant or not.
In this context, the text serves to offer base information to a person with the express purpose of leading this person to a greater witness and understanding of God. The witness and understanding need not be perfect any more than a kindergardener’s understanding of math and reading need be perfect. One is inside a process of education and progression.
Initially, Introduction to sacred knowledge and not perfection in sacred knowledge is the purpose in case.
If sacred texts (whether errant or inerrant) serve to bring us information and principles and context to consider then they contribute to our awareness and allow us choice to use or not use principles we are learning. If we chose to use awareness and information wisely to the point that we develop faith, then we may progress to the point of recognizing manifestations of God’s spirit and personal revelations to us as we continue to use information and experiences and choice wisely.
As we do this, then this process of gaining intelligence and sacred characteristics and sacred understanding progresses. And the process continues.
My point is not that Errancy or Inerrancy have no place in a debate, but that if we remove them from their context amongst other religious principles, then any theories and conclusions made outside of proper contexts will not give us as much information and understanding as when one considers these same principles INSIDE their early and authentic context.
In any case, I wish you and mike555 and all other readers the very best journey that can be had in this life as we all consider and come to decide what we will believe and do in this life.
Clear, I have never heard anyone with whom I find more in common on spiritual view of the scripture. We may have two minds, but one heart on the matter of inspiration and the importance of FAITH and WORKS to the early church, and to our ongoing lives as Christians.
It is with great humility that I acknowledge you as a brother in Christ, and more than a brother, a mentor as well.
Thanks again and I say Shalom to you in the true Hebrew meaning of the word and in the grace of Sar shalom, the Prince of Peace--
Quote:
Hebrew words go beyond their spoken pronunciation. Each Hebrew word conveys feeling, intent and emotion. Shalom is more then just simply peace; it is a complete peace. It is a feeling of contentment, completeness, wholeness, well being and harmony.
Clear, I have never heard anyone with whom I find more in common on spiritual view of the scripture. We may have two minds, but one heart on the matter of inspiration and the importance of FAITH and WORKS to the early church, and to our ongoing lives as Christians.
It is with great humility that I acknowledge you as a brother in Christ, and more than a brother, a mentor as well.
Thanks again and I say Shalom to you in the true Hebrew meaning of the word and in the grace of Sar shalom, the Prince of Peace-- The meaning of "Shalom"
Warden and Clear . . . I echo these sentiments and would direct you to one of my posts on Faith and Works. Shalom.
..... 4) For example : CONSIDER SACRED TEXTS AS TOOLS
Consider, for example, the context of all sacred textual witness in their purpose as tools that witness to mankind of the existence of God and, in varying degrees of clarity, mankinds’ relationship to God and mankinds purpose on earth. If one simply adds such a context, then it does not matter if a text is perfectly inerrant or not. .......
Clear
φυφυνεδρω
Now where have I heard that idea recently?
Another great post if people will actually think about it.
I noticed my last post did not save correctly (probably my mistake)
#269 Wardendresden “ To be fair, Clear, if a poster believes the originals were inerrant AND they actually were it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that the texts we have ARE the same. It's just with so many, many errors and differences--400,000--and that number came out of the debate between Dr. Daniel Wallace and Dr. Bart Ehrman…
Hi Wardendresden :
I believe you made some very good points. I apologize that I got so very busy that I could not respond to anyone for a while.
1) INERRANCY IN NON-EXISTENT TEXT IS IRRELEVANT
I believe it is possible that original hypothetical autographs were inerrant and later, errors came into them. However, this theory is no more relevant to mankind than theorizing that the original Moon was made of Green Cheese but and later moon rock came to be it’s main characteristic. Both theories involve metaphysics and hypotheticals that are irrelevant and inapplicable to our current situation other than as an article of belief.
Since text from autographs do not exist and cannot BE used to quote in any argument, virtually all debate back and forth in this thread has actually centered on later biblical text and NOT autographical material. One poster quotes from a non-autographical bible as errant and another person counters with non-autographical biblical text. Neither poster quotes from nor is able to use autographical text in their discussion.
Readers cannot find a single quote from autographical material in this entire thread. This is partly why this thread is not referring only to “autographical” material. It cannot even tell us what the autographical material said.
2) ERRANCY AND INERRANCY OUT OF CONTEXT
I think the difficulty for individuals who lift principles out of context and hold a debate regarding that discontexted principle is that discontexted principles cannot make the same sort of sense as when viewed inside it’s original context.
For example, certain arguments tend to be contexted in an artificial “either / or” way that makes debate easier, but it discontext and incorrectly caricaturized both the principle and any conclusion. For example, debates tend to be “Faith versus Works” rather than “Faith and Works” as synergististic principles. Such discontext arguing reveals more about our incessant weakness for arguing, more than they reveal and illuminate the relationship of Faith to Works.
“Inspired Inerrancy” versus “Uninspired Errancy” is a similar type of debate that removes Inspiration and Perfection (or inerrancy) from it’s context. The recent difficulty for a poster in simply answering whether the modern bible is the inerrant word of God reflects the effects of discontexting. If a dogmatist answers that the modern bible IS an “inerrant word of God” then they are unrealistic and irrelevant since the modern bible has obvious errors. If a dogmatist admits that the modern bible is NOT the “inerrant word of God” then this admission distracts and undermines the basis of dogmatism, debate and even a faith that is based upon the book.
Barring a clear answer, I think we can assume that Mike555 believes the modern bible has error (since it was made from material that had error). Thus, the erroneous parts are not the “inerrant word of God”) despite the title of the thread.
How then will this affect belief is one assumes one can “trust" every word of the bible upon which to base their faith, upon which to develop discrete doctrines and upon which one systematize one’s system of belief? It is a distraction and a bother to admit errors.
Either way a dogmatist chooses, without the context of other principles, difficulties arise. However, there are other principles that relieve even the dogmatist from the dilemma of "inerrancy versus errancy" if they will consider them.
3) CONSIDER ADDING CONTEXT
Retaining broader historical context decreases discussional dilemmas. For example, Christians at a level of belief in God and Jesus that is based on a book may find that belief challenged by any defect in the book they base their belief upon.
I have pointed out that the belief in God and Jesus that is based upon a personal revelation from God to an individual that he lives and that Jesus is their redeemer is left undamaged and undisturbed by any defect in the text. Such a personal revelation is relatively undisturbed by defects, not only in the text, but by defects in the Christians pastor; defects in their family; their friends; etc. All other external principles do not destroy a witness of God which is based upon the principle of revelation of God. I believe that in original and authentic religion, Revelation in its’ various forms has always been the central characteristic and the greatest witness within authentic religion in all ages of time.
4) For example : CONSIDER SACRED TEXTS AS TOOLS
Consider, for example, the context of all sacred textual witness in their purpose as tools that witness to mankind of the existence of God and, in varying degrees of clarity, mankinds’ relationship to God and mankinds purpose on earth. If one simply adds such a context, then it does not matter if a text is perfectly inerrant or not.
In this context, the text serves to offer base information to a person with the express purpose of leading this person to a greater witness and understanding of God. The witness and understanding need not be perfect any more than a kindergardener’s understanding of math and reading need be perfect. One is inside a process of education and progression.
Initially, Introduction to sacred knowledge and not perfection in sacred knowledge is the purpose in case.
If sacred texts (whether errant or inerrant) serve to bring us information and principles and context to consider then they contribute to our awareness and allow us choice to use or not use principles we are learning. If we chose to use awareness and information wisely to the point that we develop faith, then we may progress to the point of recognizing manifestations of God’s spirit and personal revelations to us as we continue to use information and experiences and choice wisely.
As we do this, then this process of gaining intelligence and sacred characteristics and sacred understanding progresses. And the process continues.
My point is not that Errancy or Inerrancy have no place in a debate, but that if we remove them from their context amongst other religious principles, then any theories and conclusions made outside of proper contexts will not give us as much information and understanding as when one considers these same principles INSIDE their early and authentic context.
In any case, I wish you and mike555 and all other readers the very best journey that can be had in this life as we all consider and come to decide what we will believe and do in this life.
Clear
φυφυνεδρω
Your attitude toward the Bible is typical of those who hold to liberal so called Christianity.
The inerrancy of the original autographs, and the accuracy of the NT documents does matter. That which is known of God, and of Jesus who Himself is God is revealed in His written word. You cannot know who and what God is and what His plan is apart from that which He revealed about Himself in the Bible.
The following are comments made by textual scholars who have far more confidence in the Bible than you do.
F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the most highly regarded scholars of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He commented...
But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament , whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. [The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 230]
Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]
Even Bart D. Ehrman who puts a skeptical spin on things when writing for the general public made the following statement in a college textbook as quoted by Dan Wallace in 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' on pg. 24...
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
In an article by Dan Wallace, he wrote...
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
The late Sir Frederick Kenyon stated;
The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. [The Bible and Archaeology (1940), pp. 288-89] as quoted in 'The New Testament Documents; Are they Reliable?, F. F. Bruce, p.15]
Now where have I heard that idea recently?
Another great post if people will actually think about it.
Thinking is not held in high regard around here, nate . . . at least it would appears so from some of the dogmatic posts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two minds, one heart
