Just curious what others think about his explanation:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/12/getting-inerrancy-wrong/

Tags: Bible

Views: 659

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Inerrancy: the Biblical doctrine that says that the Scripture, in the autographs (originals), when interpreted correctly, is true in all that it teaches and upon which it touches.

as soon as he states this, he lost all credibility! there are NO original manuscripts left to compare ANY translation in any of the languages used in the bible, some of which are no longer in existence. IF you are claiming any part of the bible to be 100% true, then somehow you must prove that the original texts are correct. any discussion after that point is just blah blah blah!! imho :D

To make a long story short, I began to adopt a view that I call “reasoned inerrancy.” “Reasoned inerrancy” is a definition of inerrancy that recognizes that the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the rules of interpretation governed by genre, historical accommodations, context, argument, and purpose. In other words, the modernistic need for things to be technically precise with regard to Scripture, ironically held by both ultra-conservatives and skeptics who seek to pick apart the Bible, is just that—a modern need that produces a warped apologetic and a faulty hermeneutic.

the problem with this is as follows... there are NO footnotes from god saying which parts of his word is to be taken literally, which are metaphor, and which are mere allegories and which are just stories. theologians and scholars for thousands of years have all claimed to "know" what god really meant by a verse or a section of text, but, that means our theology is man-made and thus NOT god's word, but a man's idea of what it means! that is why there are so many sects in christianity and why they all think their revelation of the bible is the ONLY way to interpret it. IF the bible is truly a divinely inspired book, then i should be able to read it and KNOW the god who wrote it and understand his plan for my salvation. the bible is not very good at enabling anyone to 'find' the god therein, but MAN must point us to the revelation that they want us to see of this god.

the problem with this topic is that christians all believe that the jesus and god they worship is the ONLY one that is right to a large extent and the reason for the 10's of thousands of denominations all saying the other ones are wrong! IF the bible is 100% accurate as some claim, while others claim the book is mostly metaphorical and NOT to be taken literally at all, and yet others seem to think they can tell which passages fit which description of literal truth and which are mere allegories, it is understandable to think that there is no way the bible can be true to any extent at all. IF the bible revealed ONE message and ONE god, it would be a consistent message with a consistent revelation of the all-knowing god contained therein, not the divisive 'my god is true' model we see around the world today!

i will add more thoughts later if anyone is interested :D

cheers

as soon as he states this, he lost all credibility! there are NO original manuscripts left to compare ANY translation in any of the languages used in the bible, some of which are no longer in existence. IF you are claiming any part of the bible to be 100% true, then somehow you must prove that the original texts are correct. any discussion after that point is just blah blah blah!! imho :D

@ James - Yeah! Say it loud, say it proud. lol  I am tired of all the bull!

Can it be said that contradictory interpretations by various denominations are due to the fallenness of human reason? While there are some that are completely wrong, even through there are various denominations, aren't they, as a whole, saying very consistently that Jesus Christ is God and came to atone for sin? Aren't there those who have picked up the Bible and read it and came to the conclusion that Christ is God and repented of their sins and put their trust in his atoning sacrifice on the cross?

Concerning not having the originals, doesn't the "science" of textual criticism lead us to having a certain knowledge that what we do have in our thousands of copies is reliable regarding their doctrinal content?

Actually no, the Jesus Christ is God thing is a very late invention. It only became the official truth of Christian orthodox Christology per decree in the 4th century when Arius was declared a heretic and chased out of the country after which the ones and onlies true-ish Christians burned his writings and what not.

It was also in the fourth century that the list of books that made the Bible and those that were kept out began to resemble what the Bible looks like now.

That stuff might all be true if the Bible weren't "god's word". If we see at as a purely man-made anthology, then we can engage in interpretation and consider things like historical context.

But for something written or inspired by the almighty creator of the universe that does not work. Why would his book and ideas be dependent in historical context?

Well I just felt as though the author spent a lot of time and energy trying to defend a indefensible position he makes the standard excuses for the discrepancy and repeating of stories its really a long winded fingers in the ears lalalalalalallalal I cant hear you and I don't care what you say argument.

Well, I don't think he's saying to "mash" them together into one meta-gospel like the author Ehrman is referring to did with his absurd result of six denials. Actually, I believe that's the view he had early on and later rejected. He's saying that each author has a purpose and God is speaking through them even though their humanness/style comes through. For example, one writer may be more specific in identifying precisely before which crow will Peter have denied Christ three times, whereas the author may just be more generic because a rooster crows multiple times in the morning, and he just means that before the rooster completes his cycle of morning crows, Peter will have denied Christ three times.

Well, they don't specifically say "once;" therefore, they could be referring to a generic morning crowing of the rooster that usually contains multiple crows.

When the gospels were written, weren't there people still living who were alleged eyewitnesses of the purported events described in the gospels such that if they weren't true such that many adherents would have quickly realized the falsity of the claims and would not, in many cases, have been willing to be persecuted for converting to Christianity?

Good points.  Just to let you know, Mark doesn't even have that legitimacy.  Mark also copies from another unknown source.  Although Mark is the first, it isn't the original as far as NT critical scholars are concerned.

<clap clap clap> fantastic summation of the basic issues with biblical scholarship that preachers insist is 100% true! there are too many issues with too much of just the historical accuracy of the book, and that is ignoring the many moral issues that the god of the book claims to be an expert at!

Nelson, you nailed this coffin shut!

Well, I don't know that it would have been difficult to travel to Jerusalem and surrounding areas back in that time, as I believe the Roman infrastructure was rather advanced and safe for the time.

I don't think it was necessarily a runaway success because even if there were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ, as Paul mentions, that's not a huge part of the population, and certainly not everyone would even accept their claims to being eyewitnesses. Paul claims to be an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ, and yet many people won't accept that and attribute his testimony to some sort of mental disorder due to stress or what not. As Christ says, even if someone were to return from the grave to communicate truth, people still wouldn't accept it. If they won't accept the supernatural communication of scripture, then they have the ability to resist anything and everything else.

I think many people don't start with inerrancy and then chase their tail to defend it, but rather are convinced in the veracity of God's existence and have this almost innate conviction that he could safeguard, at least in doctrinal truth, the veracity of the scriptures. Therefore, until there is an obvious contradiction, e.g., Mark says "Jesus never existed." and John says, "Jesus did exist," people will remain loyal to God and his purported word.

Also, for many, they claim to have the conviction of God in their hearts that substantiates the truthfulness of scripture, and until there is a black and white contradiction that also takes into account genre, purpose, etc., they will go along standing with their belief in God and his word, all the while attributing the similar "burning in the bosom" claims of the Mormons to their [the Mormons'] being mistaken due to the adverse effects of the Fall on human reason and perception.

Also, for many, they claim to have the conviction of God in their hearts that substantiates the truthfulness of scripture, and until there is a black and white contradiction that also takes into account genre, purpose, etc., they will go along standing with their belief in God and his word, all the while attributing the similar "burning in the bosom" claims of the Mormons to their [the Mormons'] being mistaken due to the adverse effects of the Fall on human reason and perception.


and this is the very reason that religion is so dangerous! even when confronted with biblical evidence that a given theology or 'inspiration from god' is WRONG, they cling to the belief because it 'feels' right! this is the very reason why REASON will be hard to accept for so many christians of all sects and flavors - the emotion attached to faith is more powerful than facts and evidence, even when the evidence is IN the bible!

RSS

Forum

The Cross

Started by Belle Rose in Religion and the Religious, Atheism and Atheists. Last reply by Davis Goodman 16 minutes ago. 21 Replies

Help Think Atheist!

Started by David Smith in Theistic Arguments and Debate Help. Last reply by Simon Mathews 8 hours ago. 18 Replies

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by MikeLong 18 hours ago. 38 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service