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.
You know full well from what I have said on the thread concerning the believer's eternal security what I have said is necessary for salvation, and what is not. And it is not the topic of this thread.
Neither are my core beliefs the topic of this thread.
Perhaps not, but it is core to understanding the bias that you bring to this discussion. You have gone to simply repeating the same quote over and over rather than attempting to further your point of view. This is a very distinct principle of dogmatism.
Quote:
Dogmatism is the practice of pronouncing one’s beliefs with rigid, arrogant certainty. Absolute certainty. Psychologically, it is considered a personality trait in which various aspects of evolution, biology, culture, and social learning predispose people to act as if they were the sole expert on a subject. Even in the face of convincing evidence that should give reason to pause, dogmatic people will not, as Churchill said, “change their minds or change the topic.” They simply refuse to see things any other way, and fail to consider the possibility they might be wrong.
Those that uphold Biblical authority generally seem reluctant to address what undermines it in the minds of others.
Perhaps you can't address it because you don't know how. But there is more than one "type" of belief in inerrancy and at this point you are exhibiting the weakest of those links. There is at least one stronger argument in approaching inerrancy and I thought you would find it and perhaps modify your view. But dogma is far easier than learning. Unfortunately it accomplishes nothing but the declaration of the dogma by the dogmatist.
I still seek the truth, but I'm unable to learn from dogmatists. Listening to dogma is kind of like tires in mud going round and round with much energy expended but no movement from the spot in which one is stuck, while the dogmatist proclaims to all, "I love where I'm at." And the dogmatist may love it. It's just that it's not appealing to many others.
As Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-25-2013 at 02:15 PM..
Reason: added last quote
08-25-2013, 02:35 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Let's puts some facts on the table:
1) Being able to reconstruct the autographs (debatable in itself) from the existing error-filled mss does not necessitate that the original autographs were without error. You can just as well reconstruct the errors (contradictions or otherwise) in the autographs. This is even more problematic in light of errors (contradictions or otherwise) that have been noted which are not resolved by appealing to other mss readings. Much of the apologetics for these errors are pulled out of thin air as mere possibilities to the suspossed problems and eisigetically imposed upon the text.
2) Assuming that the autographs are 'God-inspired' or quoting the 'Bible' to that effect only begs the question.
3) Drawing the conclusion of inerrancy, from #2, makes the argument invalid as a result of question begging. It also makes it problematic in light of #1 and the fact that we don't have the auotgraphs.
4) Even if we had the autographs and found them to be without error that does nothing in establishing them as 'God-inspired.'
These are the facts of the matter and none of them have been nor can be resolved.
Perhaps not, but it is core to understanding the bias that you bring to this discussion. You have gone to simply repeating the same quote over and over rather than attempting to further your point of view. This is a very distinct principle of dogmatism.
Not true. I do repeat those quotes to make sure they get seen. The 'bias' to which you refer, is the truth that the original autographs are inerrant. I have shown this in a number of ways. The latest - that Jesus Himself affirmed the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
And by the way, though you use the phrase 'dogmatism' as an insult, I make no bones about the fact that I am quite confident about what I say.
'it is important to notice that the term “dogma” emphasizes not only the statements from Scripture, but also the ecclesiastical, authoritative affirmation of those statements.' What is dogmatic theology?
You have made false accusations about me and tried to insult me a number of times on this thread (see post #440 and 450), as you have on others. This does not speak well of you.
Those that uphold Biblical authority generally seem reluctant to address what undermines it in the minds of others.
Perhaps you can't address it because you don't know how. But there is more than one "type" of belief in inerrancy and at this point you are exhibiting the weakest of those links. There is at least one stronger argument in approaching inerrancy and I thought you would find it and perhaps modify your view. But dogma is far easier than learning. Unfortunately it accomplishes nothing but the declaration of the dogma by the dogmatist.
I still seek the truth, but I'm unable to learn from dogmatists. Listening to dogma is kind of like tires in mud going round and round with much energy expended but no movement from the spot in which one is stuck, while the dogmatist proclaims to all, "I love where I'm at." And the dogmatist may love it. It's just that it's not appealing to many others.
As Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”
Then you are invited to leave the thread because I tell you this with absolute confidence based on the Bible, that the original autographs are the God-breathed and inerrant word of God.
In the domain of religion, dogmatism knows no boundaries, and dogmatic religious zealots who use government legislation and educational policies to impose their beliefs on others are antidemocratic and discriminatory. Similarly, strident dogmatic atheists who arbitrarily dismiss all believers as ignorant or naive display a level of intolerance that tests my own.
It’s beginning to sound like I’m going on a dogmatic rant against dogmatism, but I feel strongly that humanity is not paying enough attention to this worrisome personality trait. More important than my own litany of beliefs, beefs, and biases is an understanding of the deep psychological underpinnings and functional nature of dogmatism. The issue here is closed minds versus open minds; dogmatism versus reason. It is not about the superiority of one political or religious system over another, or one leader versus another.
Mike has declared that he only wants to hear from those that join in his dogmatic approach to scripture. He has refused to entertain the possibility that anything could be different from his view and his approach. He has taken issue with a student of ancient texts, Clear Lens, and has staunchly insisted that although no one has any original autographs of scripture, and although the very scholars he quotes have admitted to hundreds of thousands of errors in those manuscripts that do exist, the scripture he reads and interprets is still inerrant.
Mike has declared that he only wants to hear from those that join in his dogmatic approach to scripture. He has refused to entertain the possibility that anything could be different from his view and his approach. He has taken issue with a student of ancient texts, Clear Lens, and has staunchly insisted that although no one has any original autographs of scripture, and although the very scholars he quotes have admitted to hundreds of thousands of errors in those manuscripts that do exist, the scripture he reads and interprets is still inerrant.
To quote him before signing off.
Provide the post number where you claim that I made that declaration. And why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I have said?
Since God is inerrant His word is inerrant. It is just that simple. And again, when theologians refer to inerrancy they refer to the original autographs. As for the scholars that I quoted, all leading experts in textual criticism, I will list their statements once again.
F. F. Bruce said that the variant readings affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. Bruce Metzger stated that the amount of evidence for the New Testament 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. Daniel B. Wallace commented that 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. Bart Ehrman once acknowledged that 'scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent).' Daniel B. Wallace again asserted that '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.' And The late Sir Frederick Kenyon declared that '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.'
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]
Excerpt:
Question: "Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?"
Answer: This is truly a difficult issue to grasp. Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.
Excerpt:
According to the Chicago Statement and in general agreement within the evangelical community at large, strict inerrancy applies only to the original autographs (i.e. the very first manuscripts written). This leads to the conclusion that, "no present manuscript or copy of Scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant." ^[2]^ Nonetheless, one should not worry, for when we understand the Reliability of the New Testament and the Reliability of the Old Testament, we may have confidence that our current Bibles are 98% accurate, and no major doctrine is affected by the manuscript variants. Likewise, the Bible has proved itself reliable through prophecy, historical events, archaeology, and in many other areas.
From the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in which nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham drafted a 19 article statement pertaining to Biblical inerrancy.
Here are three of the articles in the statement: Note also what is meant by inerrancy.
Article X
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Article XII
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
1) Being able to reconstruct the autographs (debatable in itself) from the existing error-filled mss does not necessitate that the original autographs were without error. You can just as well reconstruct the errors (contradictions or otherwise) in the autographs. This is even more problematic in light of errors (contradictions or otherwise) that have been noted which are not resolved by appealing to other mss readings. Much of the apologetics for these errors are pulled out of thin air as mere possibilities to the suspossed problems and eisigetically imposed upon the text.
2) Assuming that the autographs are 'God-inspired' or quoting the 'Bible' to that effect only begs the question.
3) Drawing the conclusion of inerrancy, from #2, makes the argument invalid as a result of question begging. It also makes it problematic in light of #1 and the fact that we don't have the auotgraphs.
4) Even if we had the autographs and found them to be without error that does nothing in establishing them as 'God-inspired.'
These are the facts of the matter and none of them have been nor can be resolved.
Since there seems to be an echo in here I'll play along.
Learn the difference between "deductive" inerrancy as opposed to "inductive" inerrancy. It will take some extensive reading to understand it, but if you do and you can adopt the one as opposed to the other, you will not appear so far out in lef---- right field.
One is a better argument than the other, and at least on of your named esteemed scholars has chosen differently from his colleagues in understanding this--and he has his supporters. Yup, there is actually division among some conservative scholars about the "kind" of inerrancy.
Learn the difference between "deductive" inerrancy as opposed to "inductive" inerrancy. It will take some extensive reading to understand it, but if you do and you can adopt the one as opposed to the other, you will not appear so far out in lef---- right field.
One is a better argument than the other, and at least on of your named esteemed scholars has chosen differently from his colleagues in understanding this--and he has his supporters. Yup, there is actually division among some conservative scholars about the "kind" of inerrancy.
Good luck as you apply yourself to learning.
Inerrancy is absolute and unlimited, not limited. Just as God is inerrant in an absolute sense. You simply cannot accept that fact. What a small view you have of God and of His ability to communicate to the human writers of Scripture so that the original autographs were without error.
The scholar to whom you refer, Bart Ehrman, is now an agnostic. And the majority of scholars do not accept his current views. In no way does his agnosticism and current views negate the fact that he once admitted that ''scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Unlimited Inerrancy
Wayne Grudem defines biblical inerrancy in the following way: "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." This definition focuses on the issue of truthfulness and falsehood in the language of the Bible. In basic terms it implies that whatever the Bible talks about can be trusted to be true and accurate. At times critics of this view complain that if we do not have the original manuscripts then how can we be sure that what we have in the copies is the Word of God? In response it can be said that although we do not have any originals, through comparison of the many thousands of good copies that we have, and by examining the thousands of citations of Scripture in the writings of the early Church Fathers, scholars are able to produce a product that is as near as possible to the original, and can confidently be said to be the Word of God. The Bible - Inerrant and Infallible?
"scholars are able to produce a product that is as near as possible to the original, and can confidently be said to be the Word of God"
Mike, this right here is where I could have an issue if my understanding comes close to Warden. You've deduced that the Word of God is near as possible to the original. That, in my opinion, is impossible....since God's word was/is/will always be perfect.
"scholars are able to produce a product that is as near as possible to the original, and can confidently be said to be the Word of God"
Mike, this right here is where I could have an issue if my understanding comes close to Warden. You've deduced that the Word of God is near as possible to the original. That, in my opinion, is impossible....since God's word was/is/will always be perfect.
The thing that has to be remembered Rsdperea is that although there are undeniably variations and scribal errors in the manuscript copies, this has not caused God's word to be lost. We do have God's word, and we can trust what the Bible says.
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.
I know longer have time for this
