Does it REALLy matter if the Theologians Deny Inerrancy of the Bible?

[Baptist Believer]

So you say. I have never seen Patterson be anything but consistent. What I do know is that the left often works to misrepresent both Patterson and Pressler. I am suspicious of that here.

You can look it up for yourself. It's all there for anyone to read. Let's take the issue of speaking in tongues as an example:

It was widely known amount Ellis' students and faculty Ellis practiced a private prayer language. Furthermore, Ellis did not shy away from talking about it if it was relevant to the subject at hand. Moreover, Ellis and the Pattersons were close friends and dined and traveled together frequently. On top of that, Ellis specifically told me that Paige Patterson was aware of his beliefs, views and practices.

Yet Ellis served "at the pleasure of the president" of Southwestern Seminary while both Hemphill and Patterson were presidents.

If you have doubts, Ellis' tongue speaking was written about in the biographical sketch in the book, “History and Exegesis: New Testament essays in honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for his 80th Birthday” edited by Southwestern professor Sang-Won “Aaron” Son. If you follow the link above, you'll see that the biographical sketch begins on page 2, and the specific discussion of his tongue-speaking appears on pages 8-9. This biographical essay was well-known to the seminary community and widely referenced at Ellis' funeral.

Yet, Patterson led the Southwestern trustees to release a statement a few years before that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

So how is this a "left" wing misrepresentation?

 

[mandym]

You can look it up for yourself. It's all there for anyone to read. Let's take the issue of speaking in tongues as an example:

It was widely known amount Ellis' students and faculty Ellis practiced a private prayer language. Furthermore, Ellis did not shy away from talking about it if it was relevant to the subject at hand. Moreover, Ellis and the Pattersons were close friends and dined and traveled together frequently. On top of that, Ellis specifically told me that Paige Patterson was aware of his beliefs, views and practices.

Yet Ellis served "at the pleasure of the president" of Southwestern Seminary while both Hemphill and Patterson were presidents.

If you have doubts, Ellis' tongue speaking was written about in the biographical sketch in the book, “History and Exegesis: New Testament essays in honor of Dr. E. Earle Ellis for his 80th Birthday” edited by Southwestern professor Sang-Won “Aaron” Son. If you follow the link above, you'll see that the biographical sketch begins on page 2, and the specific discussion of his tongue-speaking appears on pages 8-9. This biographical essay was well-known to the seminary community and widely referenced at Ellis' funeral.

Yet, Patterson led the Southwestern trustees to release a statement a few years before that "Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including private prayer language. Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices."

So how is this a "left" wing misrepresentation?

Ok I will repeat myself here I find that when you have to work to assassinate the character of someone else, (like you have done with Patterson) in order to defend your own doctrine then you also do not have reasonable ground to stand on.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You know, when you have to nuance things that bad you know within your own heart you have nothing to stand on.

I have seen too many people have their faith shipwrecked by holding to a false view of scripture. I have heard preachers say from the pulpit that "if you find one single error in the Bible, you can throw it away because you'll know it is not from God." That's a very dangerous thing to teach since our copies of scripture have variants. I'm constantly dealing with teens and adults who are struggling in their faith because of the variant readings at the end of the Gospel of Mark. It's because preachers and religious authorities have constructed a 'house of cards' kind of faith where any discovery that something is not just-like-the-preacher-said-in-church-way-back-when. I know this is true because of my experience, people in my immediate family, many friends over the years, and my work with college and seminary students.

Yet in contradiction to your assumptions, I have no doubts about the word of God being true, trustworthy, accurate, and essential to my faith.

...and I also find that when you have to work to assassinate the character of someone else, (like you have done with Patterson) in order to defend your own doctrine then you also do not have reasonable ground to stand on.

Hmm... Reporting that is true = "character assassination"

If you have the nerve, you can look at my other post in this thread were I give documentation of just one element of my assertion then deal with the consequences.

I'm not going to sideline this thread talking about Patterson anymore because he's only a side-note to the real issues here.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Ok I will repeat myself here I find that when you have to work to assassinate the character of someone else, (like you have done with Patterson) in order to defend your own doctrine then you also do not have reasonable ground to stand on.

I didn't have to work. It's right there.

Do you have something against posting links to articles and books? Or are you just upset that someone can document things you don't want to deal with?

 

[jaigner]

So show me which doctrine do the current copies get wrong?

It's not the copies, it's the reader's interpretation that is fallible, although some translations are much clearer than others.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Ok, just get down to the meat of the matter.

If I thought that "some" of the Bible had errors, then how could I believe any of it?

It is either true or it isn't.

I do question the large number of modern translations we have today. Not all of them agree in every verse, so some have to be wrong.

Which ones?

If my Bible has even one lie in it, then how can I believe any of it?


John

 

[glfredrick]

Ok, just get down to the meat of the matter.

If I thought that "some" of the Bible had errors, then how could I believe any of it?

It is either true or it isn't.

I do question the large number of modern translations we have today. Not all of them agree in every verse, so some have to be wrong.

Which ones?

If my Bible has even one lie in it, then how can I believe any of it?


John

So you would walk away from God because you discovered that some humans may have made a few errors in handling God's perfect Word? Really?

How then do you handle very human preachers and teachers or the brothers and sisters you sit next to in church?

I say you better get walking because you are already trusting in human efforts instead of God...

Note: There are errors in every translation and every ancient text that we possess. Yet, they ARE God's Word! And, they are utterly sufficient for salvation!

 

[JesusFan]

So you would walk away from God because you discovered that some humans may have made a few errors in handling God's perfect Word? Really?

How then do you handle very human preachers and teachers or the brothers and sisters you sit next to in church?

I say you better get walking because you are already trusting in human efforts instead of God...

Note: There are errors in every translation and every ancient text that we possess. Yet, they ARE God's Word! And, they are utterly sufficient for salvation!

again, NO errors or mistakes in the original though from God, correct?

Would agree that we have 'almost" perfect copies of the originals, do have ggod translations that are indeed infallible and afinal authority for all things that they discuss!

 

[glfredrick]

again, NO errors or mistakes in the original though from God, correct?

Of course not. God is both able and capable of expressing Himself precisely without error.

If we had the original autographs we would plainly see that, but by God's grace we do not have them. Some see that as a huge issue. I (and others) see that as a huge blessing, for the very nature of humanity suggests that we would worship the autographs instead of the God who inspired them to be written.

We have all of God revealed in the Text that we need (and more!). No doctrine is compromised from any of the errors or variant readings. We can walk assured that whichever translation we use (not counting intentional versions that are produced by non-Christian cults) will prove fruitful in the making of disciples (and yes, that includes the NIV 2011).

 

[JesusFan]

Of course not. God is both able and capable of expressing Himself precisely without error.

If we had the original autographs we would plainly see that, but by God's grace we do not have them. Some see that as a huge issue. I (and others) see that as a huge blessing, for the very nature of humanity suggests that we would worship the autographs instead of the God who inspired them to be written.

We have all of God revealed in the Text that we need (and more!). No doctrine is compromised from any of the errors or variant readings. We can walk assured that whichever translation we use (not counting intentional versions that are produced by non-Christian cults) will prove fruitful in the making of disciples (and yes, that includes the NIV 2011).

Think rippon says "thank you!"