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.
Misleading again, both about the nature of the topic--which is not how close the copies are to the originals that do not exist and which cannot be verified---and misleading in that you try to pull "inerrancy" from those gentlemen when I know three of them don't have your mind set. You used the names of others for the same purpose in post #35.
One, of them, Wallace, CLAIMS to be an inerrantist. But he insists that numerous NT scriptures have been mistranslated and some are additions to the earlier texts. WOULD ANY FUNDAMENTALIST LIKE TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED AS CLAIMING THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS ERRORS AND ADDITIONS? And how do you or him know that there wasn't some sort of error in the Original? We don't have one to verify anything with. It is a silly premise and unworthy of common sense. The part I bolded in Wallace's statement is evidence like we had from a WWII general who encouraged Congress to incarcerate Japanese Americans: "It is precisely because we have had no sabotage that we need to take action, because it is indicative it is being planned carefully!" That same thought process is what Wallace is bringing to the table.
The second one, Bart Ehrman, is an agnostic who states openly and in debates with nearly every conservative scholar out there, that the Bible is in no way inerrant. His books, Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities attest to his complete opposition to inerrancy. But you attempt to paint a picture of him supporting inerrancy because he once stated that NT books are about 98% the same (if you exclude the 400,000 minor omissions, deletions, misspellings, and obvious additions).
Finally, Bruce Metzger, as reported by Dr. Daniel Wallace, told students who came to his lecture at Dallas Theological Seminary a couple of years before his death that he was NOT an inerrantist because he didn't believe it a wise thing to claim for the bible something it does not claim for itself.
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT INERRANCY. Please refrain from introducing unrelated subject matter. And if you think it IS related, then count yourself officially refuted.
And lastly, the Qumran discoveries forever squashed the idea that we have close to the same documents that were original. They are older than the Septuagint version of scripture translated into English and our version of Jeremiah is one seventh longer than the older Minority Text document. A few things were cut out from the older version, such as failed prophecies, and quite a bit of new material was inserted. And the texts align very differently from one another. If the older text is closer to the "original," then why aren't fundamentalists crying to have it included in their Bibles. I think I have the answer----they are more comfortable with what they have been taught than they are interested in learning about the "originals." The whole "originals" concept is a specious attempt to look smarter than a cardboard box. WE DON"T HAVE THE ORIGINALS, so appealing to them is fruitless. YOU ARE THE ONE TELLING US WHAT THE ORIGINALS SAID--and your making it sound like the flawed English bible we have.
Despite the fact that I clearly stated that their quotes are not about inerrancy, but are about the degree to which our copies are faithful to the originals, you still accuse me of trying to pull inerrancy out of their quotes. As I stated in post #35, ''They are not addressing the issue of inerrancy. They are simply addressing the issue of how closely we can get to the original text. Those are two different issues.''
Despite your opinion, the simple fact of the matter is that the quoted textual critics say that our present text is largely faithful to the originals and that the variants do not affect any essential doctrines of the Christian faith. They are New Testament textual critics and so their statements are concerned with the New Testament manuscripts.
And the subject came up in reply to Pneuma.
The original autographs, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were inerrant. They were truthful in all that they said. The fact that we don't have the originals does not alter that fact.
Misleading again, both about the nature of the topic--which is not how close the copies are to the originals that do not exist and which cannot be verified---and misleading in that you try to pull "inerrancy" from those gentlemen when I know three of them don't have your mind set. You used the names of others for the same purpose in post #35.
One, of them, Wallace, CLAIMS to be an inerrantist. But he insists that numerous NT scriptures have been mistranslated and some are additions to the earlier texts. WOULD ANY FUNDAMENTALIST LIKE TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED AS CLAIMING THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS ERRORS AND ADDITIONS? And how do you or him know that there wasn't some sort of error in the Original? We don't have one to verify anything with. It is a silly premise and unworthy of common sense. The part I bolded in Wallace's statement is evidence like we had from a WWII general who encouraged Congress to incarcerate Japanese Americans: "It is precisely because we have had no sabotage that we need to take action, because it is indicative it is being planned carefully!" That same thought process is what Wallace is bringing to the table.
The second one, Bart Ehrman, is an agnostic who states openly and in debates with nearly every conservative scholar out there, that the Bible is in no way inerrant. His books, Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities attest to his complete opposition to inerrancy. But you attempt to paint a picture of him supporting inerrancy because he once stated that NT books are about 98% the same (if you exclude the 400,000 minor omissions, deletions, misspellings, and obvious additions).
Finally, Bruce Metzger, as reported by Dr. Daniel Wallace, told students who came to his lecture at Dallas Theological Seminary a couple of years before his death that he was NOT an inerrantist because he didn't believe it a wise thing to claim for the bible something it does not claim for itself.
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT INERRANCY. Please refrain from introducing unrelated subject matter. And if you think it IS related, then count yourself officially refuted.
And lastly, the Qumran discoveries forever squashed the idea that we have close to the same documents that were original. They are older than the Septuagint version of scripture translated into English and our version of Jeremiah is one seventh longer than the older Minority Text document. A few things were cut out from the older version, such as failed prophecies, and quite a bit of new material was inserted. And the texts align very differently from one another. If the older text is closer to the "original," then why aren't fundamentalists crying to have it included in their Bibles. I think I have the answer----they are more comfortable with what they have been taught than they are interested in learning about the "originals." The whole "originals" concept is a specious attempt to look smarter than a cardboard box. WE DON"T HAVE THE ORIGINALS, so appealing to them is fruitless. YOU ARE THE ONE TELLING US WHAT THE ORIGINALS SAID--and your making it sound like the flawed English bible we have.
Well said, Warden. I'm afraid it is pointless to debate these issues with those who believe in magic or engage in magical thinking about God. As long as magical thinking is invoked, it can simply be asserted that God (like Captain Picard) said "Make it so!"
Of course Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as a guide. No one has ever said otherwise. That is simply a false accusation on the part of some. - John 16:7-15
He also promised to preserve His Word. They are not mutually exclusive things. But the Holy Spirit works with the Scriptures and never leads anyone to believe anything contrary to the Scriptures. And how do we know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as a guide? Because His promise to do so is preserved in His written Word.
Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Jesus said many things which have not been preserved in writing and so we don't know what those things were. But of the things He said that we do know, including those things He revealed to John in the Book of Revelation, we know because they were preserved in writing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
So only SOME of Jesus' words will not pass away? One more time: The Word and the Bible are not the same thing and presenting them as such t support your doctrine is at best misleading. The instrument chosen to preserve the Word, or the Plan, or the Way Jesus taught was the Spirit. Have you ever wondered what Jesus must think that you don"t trust His instrument to do the job assigned?
That was not my meaning. All of which Jesus spoke is true and remains true. But the Scriptures do not record all that Jesus said during His public ministry. The gospel accounts preserve for us what God wanted to be recorded for us. Further, all the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments is the word of God, and is preserved forever. The Bible is the communicated Word of God set in writing. God's Word has been communicated in various ways throughout human history. By direct communication as when God in a theophany spoke to Adam, Abram, and Moses for example, through angels, through dreams and visions, through the prophets, through Jesus, through the apostles, and through the written Scriptures both Old and New Testaments.
The New Testament Scriptures are the direct result of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise to the apostles to disclose to them through the Holy Spirit the things he could not communicate to them before He had to leave them because they could not bear them at that time (John 16:12-16).
As I stated elsewhere, while the Holy Spirit was promised as a guide, this does not negate the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. And it was by means of the Holy Spirit that the writers of Scripture wrote without error God's communicated Word. The Holy Sprit uses whatever has been transferred from the Bible into the soul of the believer to guide him.
Despite the fact that I clearly stated that their quotes are not about inerrancy, but are about the degree to which our copies are faithful to the originals, you still accuse me of trying to pull inerrancy out of their quotes. As I stated in post #35, ''They are not addressing the issue of inerrancy. They are simply addressing the issue of how closely we can get to the original text. Those are two different issues.''
Despite your opinion, the simple fact of the matter is that the quoted textual critics say that our present text is largely faithful to the originals and that the variants do not affect any essential doctrines of the Christian faith. They are New Testament textual critics and so their statements are concerned with the New Testament manuscripts.
And the subject came up in reply to Pneuma.
The original autographs, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were inerrant. They were truthful in all that they said. The fact that we don't have the originals does not alter that fact.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Apparently, you are one card short of a royal flush.
Well said, Warden. I'm afraid it is pointless to debate these issues with those who believe in magic or engage in magical thinking about God. As long as magical thinking is invoked, it can simply be asserted that God (like Captain Picard) said "Make it so!"
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, fundamentalists can do similar magic by taking the words of scholars that have absolutely nothing to do with inerrancy and twist them to make them APPEAR to be something about inerrancy.
It's just another way they work to make the Bible an instruction manual as opposed to an inspiration about faith. Never underestimate the ability of a fundamentalist to be creative in ways meant to mislead and misdirect people concerning the complexity of scripture. It's always simple. They are always right. And if you have a different view it's because you are blinded by your sin or, at best, sadly misguided.
Having some scholars say that they believe the existing copies are "close" to the originals and concluding that what we have is therefore acceptable as inerrant is not only egregious logic, it is outright dishonest when a poster KNOWS that at least two of those scholars are in absolute OPPOSITION to viewing the scripture as inerrant.
Finn I have shown you countless times where Jesus corrected man view of the law. We are to follow His example, and expose those things man has added to the scriptures and called scripture.
as to your comment God word will never pass away, well what about the laws concerning sacrifice did they not pass away? What about all the things Jesus said that passed away, you know all those things Jesus spoke that if written down in book the world would not be able to contain them. Were did those words go?
Please provide some examples where the Spirit told you something this directly contradicts words of Jesus written in the Bible.
Please provide some examples where the Spirit told you something this directly contradicts words of Jesus written in the Bible.
You just don't get it,Finn. The Spirit never contradicts Jesus . . . just our ignorant ancestors who wrote about Him. You never test anything against the Spirit of agape love so you have no clue what we are talking about. You believe whatever is in the Bible no matter how contradictory or inconsistent it may be with the Spirit of agape love or Christ.
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, fundamentalists can do similar magic by taking the words of scholars that have absolutely nothing to do with inerrancy and twist them to make them APPEAR to be something about inerrancy.
It's just another way they work to make the Bible an instruction manual as opposed to an inspiration about faith. Never underestimate the ability of a fundamentalist to be creative in ways meant to mislead and misdirect people concerning the complexity of scripture. It's always simple. They are always right. And if you have a different view it's because you are blinded by your sin or, at best, sadly misguided.
Having some scholars say that they believe the existing copies are "close" to the originals and concluding that what we have is therefore acceptable as inerrant is not only egregious logic, it is outright dishonest when a poster KNOWS that at least two of those scholars are in absolute OPPOSITION to viewing the scripture as inerrant.
Once again, as I clearly stated, the quotes by the given textual critics were with regard to the faithfulness of our texts to the original autographs and is a different issue than the inerrancy of the original autographs. Nor did I have them say what was quoted. They did say it. And since I have repeatedly stated that inerrancy refers to the original autographs and not to the copies, it is not I who am attempting to mislead people by what I have said.
It is surely a strange apologetic that says faith in Christ is all you need for salvation; and then says, you have no right to your faith in Christ unless you believe that the Bible is without error.
--Francis L. Patton
When discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot har*monize them, let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith.
--Martin Luther
Difficult though it may be to understand, God chose to make his authority relevant to his creatures by means that necessitate some element of fallibility.
--Dewey M. Beegle
They did not err in what they proclaimed, but this does not mean that they were faultless in their recording of historical data or in their world-view, which is now outdated.
--Donald G. Bloesch
It is urged...that unless we can demonstrate what is called the inerrancy of the biblical record down even to its minutest details, the whole edifice of belief in revealed religion falls to the ground. This, on the face of it, is the most suicidal position for any defender of revelation to take up.
--James Orr
The Bible does not give us a doctrine of its own inspiration and authority that answers all the various questions we might like to ask. Its witness on this subject is unsystematic and somewhat fragmentary and enables us to reach important but modest conclusions.
--Clark H. Pinnock
In the last analysis the inerrancy theory is a logical deduction not well supported exegetically. Those who press it hard are elevating reason over Scripture....
--Pinnock
---------------
As Barr states: "In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and nonliteral...exegesis....The typical conservative evangeli*cal exegesis is literal, but only up to a point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is made."1 This fanatical devotion to inerrancy compromises the integrity of evangelical theology right at its roots.
---------------- to insist that the Bible is factually correct in all respects is to impose a scientific world-view on a prescientific document. Indeed, one cannot make this claim of even the best scientific documents. As Rudolf Bultmann emphasized, the Bible is the proclamation (kerygma) of God's saving grace; it is not to be taken as an encyclopedia of empirical facts. Bultmann would have been sympathetic to Robert M. Smith's comments about God's Inerrant Word, an anthology of articles by fundamentalists: "The authors... are right about the Bible being a perfect book but are wrong in the way they define perfection....They are defining perfect the way a mathematician or scientist would define it; they are not defining perfect the way the cross of Jesus Christ defines it."3 Evangelical rationalists repeatedly use extrabiblical standards to distort basic biblical meanings.Thomas Torrance of the University of Edinburgh maintains that the fundamentalists' crucial mistake is a form of nominalism: identifying the truth with statements about the truth. Torrance contends that the Bible, like all other created things, must have an element of deficiency so that it can point beyond itself to the truth of God.4 Torrance follows Karl Barth who declared that the Bible "is not the Revelation" but "the witness to the Revelation, and this is expressed in human terms...."5
The "detailed inerrancy" of evangelical rationalism is an excellent example of religious syncretism--a very ironic instance of it. In their bitter battle against modernism, they are just as modernist as their opponents in calling the Bible a factual treatise as well as a religious one. Both modernists and these Christians accept the same criterion for truth: the scientific method. In doing so these evangelicals unwittingly forget that for Christians God is the sole standard of truth. Bible scholar George E. Mendenhall phrases the preceding point this way:
Biblical fundamentalism, whether Jewish or Christian, cannot learn from the past because in so many respects the defense of presently accepted ideas about religion is thought to be the only purpose of biblical narrative. It must, therefore, support ideas of comparatively recent origin--ones that usually have nothing to do with the original meaning or intention of biblical narrative because the context is so radically different.6
A. G. Hebert concurs: "Hence, the inerrancy of the Bible, as it is understood today, is a new doctrine, and the modern fundamentalist is asserting something that no previous age has understood in anything like the modern sense."7
To sum up, fundamentalism's insistence on "inerrancy" is neither biblical nor historical. It is a modernistic cult.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-22-2015 at 12:37 PM..
Reason: formatting
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.
