Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prove to me the Bible is inerrant

tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:11:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

I agree with that, however, to say that changes did not come by men is false.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:22:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:11:49 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

I agree with that, however, to say that changes did not come by men is false.

I am not sure I understand your statement.

Recognizing that few errors or complaints exist in that regard, we look to the overall message. We see that the interaction of God with those 40 authors and historical occurances display a very consistent and complex Character of a very big God.

You would have to call into question the motives and recorded accuracy of those authors. If this was something that could be plausibly done even remotely, then Christianity would have been destroyed by now.

We have thousands of copies of the writings so we are very certain we have the original documentation.
Textual criticism bears this out.

That is not to say that humans do not continue to fub the Bible, we see Luther based upon interpretive reasons tossed out books he did not like as did the Jews in the first century.

This however does nothing to the mainstream view where all books are still considered to relay the comprehensive nature of the Christian God.

With just a little bit of effort and study it is not so hard to determine where some interpretation or where a human error took hold.

However, the Bible can be affirmed to be consistent when these human mistakes are clearly understood.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:26:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

Are you saying men did not make drastic changes to the Bible, just typos?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

What about theological discrepancies? Are they just typo's as well?

Besides, a scribal error is an error, so you cannot claim something is inerrant if it has any kind of error
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:26:08 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

Are you saying men did not make drastic changes to the Bible, just typos?

Correct.
There has never been proven to be a "drastic" change to the Bible. The Jews were known to change a couple verses in the Masoretic text, but we have the septuigent intact to compare with to understand those changes.

Additionally, books have been attempted to be removed from Christian circulation but the removal of those books does little to detract the consistency of the theological message.

So attempts have been made but we can truly affirm the quality of the message that has been handed down to us.
We know what those attempts where, they were never drastic and we have thousands of documents to compare to assert we indeed have a consistent theological message.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:31:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:26:08 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

Are you saying men did not make drastic changes to the Bible, just typos?

Correct.
There has never been proven to be a "drastic" change to the Bible. The Jews were known to change a couple verses in the Masoretic text, but we have the septuigent intact to compare with to understand those changes.

Additionally, books have been attempted to be removed from Christian circulation but the removal of those books does little to detract the consistency of the theological message.

So attempts have been made but we can truly affirm the quality of the message that has been handed down to us.
We know what those attempts where, they were never drastic and we have thousands of documents to compare to assert we indeed have a consistent theological message.

How is that possible with all the different versions of the Bible? Which Bible do you use?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:34:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:33:05 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:31:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:26:08 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

Are you saying men did not make drastic changes to the Bible, just typos?

Correct.
There has never been proven to be a "drastic" change to the Bible. The Jews were known to change a couple verses in the Masoretic text, but we have the septuigent intact to compare with to understand those changes.

Additionally, books have been attempted to be removed from Christian circulation but the removal of those books does little to detract the consistency of the theological message.

So attempts have been made but we can truly affirm the quality of the message that has been handed down to us.
We know what those attempts where, they were never drastic and we have thousands of documents to compare to assert we indeed have a consistent theological message.

How is that possible with all the different versions of the Bible? Which Bible do you use?

What about changes when it is translated to a different language? That is almost inevitable...
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:35:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:31:33 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

What about theological discrepancies? Are they just typo's as well?

Besides, a scribal error is an error, so you cannot claim something is inerrant if it has any kind of error

There are no theological discrepancies when reviewed in a meritorious valid process.

Again
scribal error =/= theological error.

Very few, if any Christians would assert all of the texts did not have scribal errors.
However,
The number of texts show us the proper text.
Concept:
A
B
C
D
E
K
G
H
I

Can you pick out the deviant error from the order above?
We can read a verse in countless copies and see clearly any error that emerges. WE do not rely on merely one text.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 1:56:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:34:04 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:33:05 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:31:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:26:08 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

Are you saying men did not make drastic changes to the Bible, just typos?

Correct.
There has never been proven to be a "drastic" change to the Bible. The Jews were known to change a couple verses in the Masoretic text, but we have the septuigent intact to compare with to understand those changes.

Additionally, books have been attempted to be removed from Christian circulation but the removal of those books does little to detract the consistency of the theological message.

So attempts have been made but we can truly affirm the quality of the message that has been handed down to us.
We know what those attempts where, they were never drastic and we have thousands of documents to compare to assert we indeed have a consistent theological message.

How is that possible with all the different versions of the Bible? Which Bible do you use?

What about changes when it is translated to a different language? That is almost inevitable...

If I say "In the begining God created" in Spanish "En el principio creó Dios" or Arabic "في البدء خلق الله" yes there are inevitable difficulties. But as Gil stated a scribing error does not mean theological error.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 2:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:33:05 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:31:49 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:26:08 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:24:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:18:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

If the Bible is inerrant, it can't have any errors.

inerrant - free from errors [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

So is it inerrant or not? I thought that was one of your criticisms of Mormons.

Inerrancy and verbal plenary inerrancy are two distinct ideas.
Additionally,
A scribal error =/= theological error.

Inerrancy is not claimed that there are not typo's or some such in the Bible, but rather it is theologically inerrant.

Are you saying men did not make drastic changes to the Bible, just typos?

Correct.
There has never been proven to be a "drastic" change to the Bible. The Jews were known to change a couple verses in the Masoretic text, but we have the septuigent intact to compare with to understand those changes.

Additionally, books have been attempted to be removed from Christian circulation but the removal of those books does little to detract the consistency of the theological message.

So attempts have been made but we can truly affirm the quality of the message that has been handed down to us.
We know what those attempts where, they were never drastic and we have thousands of documents to compare to assert we indeed have a consistent theological message.

How is that possible with all the different versions of the Bible? Which Bible do you use?

I am unsure what you mean by different versions of the bible.

"There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament."... "The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000."
http://carm.org...

"The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the", "but", etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths."
https://school.carm.org...

If the first ruler ever made was in a museum and that museum burnt down destroying the first ruler with it would we argue that no existing copy of that ruler is reliable? No, because most of the other rulers are in accord with themselves.

For a word-for-word translation I prefer the ESB or the NSAB. For a transliteration I would go for the NIV though I like never read from a transliteration.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 2:17:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If I say "In the begining God created" in Spanish "En el principio creó Dios" or Arabic "في البدء خلق الله" yes there are inevitable difficulties. But as Gil stated a scribing error does not mean theological error.

Nonetheless, it still loses meaning. If you believe that God oversees his work, as in the Bible translations were inspired, that is understandable. However, it is hard for me to fathom especially with many versions of the Bible. The Bible has gone through too many hands, in my opinion.

How do you account for different versions of the Bible?

Also can you prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, with scripture?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Wandile
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 2:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 2:17:23 PM, tyler90az wrote:
If I say "In the begining God created" in Spanish "En el principio creó Dios" or Arabic "في البدء خلق الله" yes there are inevitable difficulties. But as Gil stated a scribing error does not mean theological error.

Nonetheless, it still loses meaning. If you believe that God oversees his work, as in the Bible translations were inspired, that is understandable. However, it is hard for me to fathom especially with many versions of the Bible. The Bible has gone through too many hands, in my opinion.

It doesn't really lose meaning. There are challenges, no doubt, but translations are reviewed by boards to make sure the meaning is kept in tact. Like here in South Africa the Zulu bible is easily read alongside the english bible and they both say the same things and the meanings are kept the same.

Translations are done by many scholars to ensure that meanings are kept intact and that words are as accurate as possible. Its an extremely careful process that takes years to complete.

How do you account for different versions of the Bible?

Versions are just different style of the same text. Like the King James Bible 1611 version is in Old English. NKJV is in modern english. Versions account for the various dialects of times in societies. Hence new versions always need to be published to keep up with modern english so that we can read and understand easier. Its a very simple concept.

Also can you prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, with scripture?

How do you suppose we go about doing that?
"Possibly deluded.... no way to confirm the veracity. That is an extraordinary claim to suggest billions the world over and throughout history are deluded. Proof?
Also if you actually believe these Billions of historical Christians are deluded, what gives you a warrant to special plead you are not equally self deluded within your own views? Sounds like self contradictory belief system you are under." - Gileandos

The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice - Proverb
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 3:17:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 2:17:23 PM, tyler90az wrote:
If I say "In the begining God created" in Spanish "En el principio creó Dios" or Arabic "في البدء خلق الله" yes there are inevitable difficulties. But as Gil stated a scribing error does not mean theological error.

Nonetheless, it still loses meaning. If you believe that God oversees his work, as in the Bible translations were inspired, that is understandable. However, it is hard for me to fathom especially with many versions of the Bible. The Bible has gone through too many hands, in my opinion.

I agree with the others, after a couple hours of study, a translation issue can easily be resolved.
Many hands actually produce superior works as opposed to inferior ones. With many, you can see divergent productions and they can be caught by the other scholars.

The Bible when out into many different parts of the world very early on with different languages and we can look back and compare these documents to assert a superior text after review. When compared to the plethora of early greek copies there is little issue in this manner as you pose.


How do you account for different versions of the Bible?

Pop was correct, versions are either tranliterations or translations. They are word for word or thought for thought and are aides to your studies. They span 400+ years in English. The multitude of hands only work to ensure we are theologically accurate.


Also can you prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, with scripture?

Do you want me to quote the whole Bible for you? What are you asking for?
Do you just want an example of the theological consitency of New and Old Testament? How about the concept of Born Again?
Pslam 87 and Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus.

If this is not what you are asking you will have to rephrase.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 6:39:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I really admire all of you for your beliefs in the Bible. You all have proven the love which you have for the Bible, as do I. It has been wonderful reading what your belief about the Bible is. With that said, I think we can agree to disagree.

The love you have for the Bible penetrates, even through your posts. Keeping that in mind, how could you fail to read Another Testament of Jesus Christ, The Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon does not take anything away from the Bible, it only enhances it. The Book of Mormon is similar to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the sense it seeks not to change your beliefs, but add to them.

When Jesus came to the earth, did he not seek to add unto the Jews beliefs? That is what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seeks, not to destroy your wonderful beliefs. As a member of the church I seek to show you the truth which you are missing, out of love for my brothers and sisters. You are not missing the truth because you are a bad person or do not believe in Jesus Christ. You are missing the truth (1) you have not been shown the truth or (2) you let the world keep you away from the truth.

I ask, how could you miss an eternal opportunity by not reading The Book of Mormon? Is your eternal destiny not at stake? All we ask is read The Book of Mormon with pure intent, to know rather the book is true or not, then pray rather The Book of Mormon is true or not. Do not rely on my word, rely on God.

I can bear testimony that The Book of Mormon is true and another testament of Jesus Christ. I also know that God loves you so much he will show the truth onto you, if you only let him. Read The Book of Mormon brothers and sisters, I plead with you out of love. God wants you to add onto the beautiful things you already know and receive the full truth.

26 ¶And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:
Isaiah 5:26

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
Moroni 7:13-16

The Book of Moron:
http://lds.org...
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 8:57:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

So the contradictions are meant me be in there? And the scientific impossibilities are not literal?
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 10:54:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 8:57:29 PM, rogue wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

So the contradictions are meant me be in there? And the scientific impossibilities are not literal?

Sup Rogue! Happy new year! What I think he is getting at is that the theological consistency of the Bible should not be discredited because of scribal errors (not contradictions). Saying that it contains contradictions does not make it so. If it can be proved to not be a contradiction then it simply objectively cannot be determined to be a contradiction. If you want to post any supposed contradictions please 'check' them through this website: www.carm.org (that is where I would pull the majority of my explanations).

As for scientific impossibilities there are many different logical explanations for pretty much all the arguments that tend to be listed. Whether these explanations 'seem' to be true or not means little to spiritual people. The explanations aught to be 'determined objectively' false for them to not be considered valid held by that specific person. And that usually just ends up boiling down to personal presuppositions.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 9:26:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 8:57:29 PM, rogue wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

So the contradictions are meant me be in there? And the scientific impossibilities are not literal?

I will be as succinct as possible to leave no doubts.

scribal errors =/= contradictions
and
What rogue believes to be a contradiction =/= an actual contradiction
and
What rogue believes to be scientifically impossible =/= a scientific impossibility

Never have I seen an objectively true complaint against the Bible save from one Theologian.

An unstudied anti-theistic viewpoint should never direct a person against the consensus of the New Testament Scholars.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 9:36:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 6:39:21 PM, tyler90az wrote:


The Book of Moron:
http://lds.org...


I found this quote enjoyable. You did mistype that.

As to your whole argument why not let the Book of Mormon add to the Bible?

As you have not read the Bible I will cite to you one of the last few verses.
Revelation:
18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

Now I realize realize most do not add or take away from the Book of Revelation specifically, but the Book of Mormon 'adds' and 'removes' teachings from the book of revelation.

Combine that the book of mormon has zero archeological evidence, was written by a conman and Jesus never prophecied he would do any such thing after his ressurection...... one can toss the Book of Mormon out of your periphery as a religious document.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 10:39:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 9:36:19 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 6:39:21 PM, tyler90az wrote:


The Book of Moron:
http://lds.org...


I found this quote enjoyable. You did mistype that.

As to your whole argument why not let the Book of Mormon add to the Bible?

As you have not read the Bible I will cite to you one of the last few verses.
Revelation:
18 And I solemnly declare to everyone who hears the words of prophecy written in this book: If anyone adds anything to what is written here, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone removes any of the words from this book of prophecy, God will remove that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.

Now I realize realize most do not add or take away from the Book of Revelation specifically, but the Book of Mormon 'adds' and 'removes' teachings from the book of revelation.

Combine that the book of mormon has zero archeological evidence, was written by a conman and Jesus never prophecied he would do any such thing after his ressurection...... one can toss the Book of Mormon out of your periphery as a religious document.

This is a prime example of how the Bible is not inerrant.

I have read the Bible and understand what it says in revelations. However, many scholars say other books in the Bible were written after Revelations.

There are also many other scriptures that say do not add onto the Bible, even in the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


Scriptures and Quotes:


9 For behold, this is written for the intent that ye may believe that; and if ye believe that ye will believe this also; and if ye believe this ye will know concerning your fathers, and also the marvelous works which were wrought by the power of God among them.
Mormon 7:9

"The Book of Mormon … declares that the Bible is true, and it proves it; and the two prove each other true."
Brigham Young

12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
2 Nephi 3:12

5 ¶Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Proverbs 3:5-7

"And those who receive [the Book of Mormon] in faith," the Lord states, "and work righteousness, shall receive a crown of eternal life;

"But those who harden their hearts in unbelief, and reject it, it shall turn to their own condemnation."
D&C 20:14-15
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 10:40:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

It is good to learn that the U.S. military is inerrant.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 11:15:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

Sorry, I have read it many times and cannot say that the bible is inerrant.
It also depends on what you consider "inerrant."
Like Eric Voegelin teachers, the facts of a story does not take away from the meaning of a myth.
So can a myth be true? If it comes from a place of consciousness, yes. Moments of consciousness are real and therefore makes the meaning real. Facts may not matter.

Is the Bible historically accurate? No.
Is the Bible without fault? No.
Are the myths found in it less credible with inaccuracies if it comes form a peoples consciousness? No.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 11:36:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 11:15:14 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

Sorry, I have read it many times and cannot say that the bible is inerrant.
It also depends on what you consider "inerrant."
Like Eric Voegelin teachers, the facts of a story does not take away from the meaning of a myth.
So can a myth be true? If it comes from a place of consciousness, yes. Moments of consciousness are real and therefore makes the meaning real. Facts may not matter.

Interesting input!

Is the Bible historically accurate? No.
Is the Bible without fault? No.
Are the myths found in it less credible with inaccuracies if it comes form a peoples consciousness? No.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 1:03:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Biblical inerrancy historically meant that the Bible is inspired (written by God through men (inspiration not dictation)) and therefor without error (inerrant). This however only applies to the original documents. But since the original documents are lost how can we trust the current Bible to be reliable? I will discuss that below.

Proving the Bible to be inerrant is impossible as the original documents no longer exist. It can only be evidenced that the copies we have are inerrant. It is common knowledge that the Bibles we have today have copyist errors (http://carm.org...). So it can easily be determined that they are not inerrant.

"The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired;" that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%. Nevertheless, nothing affects doctrinal truths. " http://carm.org...

Christians who say the Bible (we have today) is inerrant usually mean infallible:

"The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind." http://carm.org...

and

"From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that "infalliblity" is a stronger term than "inerrancy." "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'" [2] Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[3] This contrasts with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of the phenomenological nature of the Biblical narratives.[3] For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." [4] In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated."[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org...

The original documents are considered inerrant and infallible. The Bible we have today is not inerrant but is still infallible and therefor its integrity for doctrine and theological matters is intact.

Also, since the position on inerracy/infallibility is basically saying "We believe there are no errors" is this not a negative legal position? Don't those who propose inerrancy/infallibility have the 'benefit of assumption'? Would not this mean that the burden of proof is for those who do not believe inerrancy/infallibility?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 1:26:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/21/2012 10:40:35 AM, wiploc wrote:
At 1/20/2012 1:08:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/20/2012 12:58:24 PM, tyler90az wrote:
How is the Bible inerrant? I am very curious, persuade me.

No "error" has the weight to deny the veracity of the overarching message of the Bible.

Any errors found in the secondary details are easily attributed to perspective, scribal errors (they all used scribes), translation hiccups etc.

Any of the complaints that seem to have a weight when reviewed, fall dramatically short vs. the overall consistency.

To give an example:
To say the three marines who took 'urinary' action against the dead bodies of the Taliban defines the U.S. Military is patently false.

Any isolated incident or error by military personal does not define the U.S. Military.

To say a one off scribal error should define the overall consistency of the Bible is patently false.

Nothing about the goals, message and affect of the military is defined by isolated errors.

and the same goes for the Bible. The overall message and consistency of the message is coherent.

That is not to say there is actually that many errors, there is relatively few errors that can be certain to be an actual error.

Most is just anti-theist propoganda or low reading comprehension skills.

It is good to learn that the U.S. military is inerrant.

The military's philosphy is not 'proved' errant by the actions of these soldiers.

I am uncertain how this is not clearly understood.
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 2:55:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/22/2012 1:03:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
Biblical inerrancy historically meant that the Bible is inspired (written by God through men (inspiration not dictation)) and therefor without error (inerrant). This however only applies to the original documents. But since the original documents are lost how can we trust the current Bible to be reliable? I will discuss that below.

Proving the Bible to be inerrant is impossible as the original documents no longer exist. It can only be evidenced that the copies we have are inerrant. It is common knowledge that the Bibles we have today have copyist errors (http://carm.org...). So it can easily be determined that they are not inerrant.

"The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired;" that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%. Nevertheless, nothing affects doctrinal truths. " http://carm.org...

Christians who say the Bible (we have today) is inerrant usually mean infallible:

"The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind." http://carm.org...

and

"From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that "infalliblity" is a stronger term than "inerrancy." "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'" [2] Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[3] This contrasts with the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of the phenomenological nature of the Biblical narratives.[3] For example, Davis suggests "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." [4] In this sense it is seen as distinct from Biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated."[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org...

The original documents are considered inerrant and infallible. The Bible we have today is not inerrant but is still infallible and therefor its integrity for doctrine and theological matters is intact.

Also, since the position on inerracy/infallibility is basically saying "We believe there are no errors" is this not a negative legal position? Don't those who propose inerrancy/infallibility have the 'benefit of assumption'? Would not this mean that the burden of proof is for those who do not believe inerrancy/infallibility?

This is all double-speak. I think you've been listening to William Lane Craig too much. Is God not capable of looking after his own book exactly as 'he wants it?