Featured Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

Being a Christian is not believing in some theory about the inerrancy of the Bible, or holding to the right Canon of Scripture. Being a Christian is living a Christian lifestyle as one is enabled to as the result of being born again a new man in Christ.

Theories about the inerrancy of the Bible and arguments over the theories are of little importance because whether the Scriptures are inerrant or not, our interpretations of them are not. Moreover, I see textual criticism of the Old and New Testaments being considered in this thread, but I do not see literary criticism, form criticism, or redaction criticism being considered even though they are of great importance in determining the original wording of the Scriptures. What scholar of the Greek text of 2 Corinthians publishing today his or her research in peer-reviewed biblical journals does not believe that this book of the New Testament is a redaction of more than one original letter? What scholar of the Greek text of the Gospel According to John publishing today his or her research in peer-reviewed biblical journals believes that this book of the New Testament is free from redactions? What scholar of the ancient texts of Genesis 1-11 publishing today his or her research in peer-reviewed biblical journals does not believe that this part of Genesis is written in a genre of literature that is virtually unique in the literature of the Bible, and is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends? How about the ancient and radically incorrect Hebrew cosmology that found its way even into the New Testament? Does not that cosmology being in the Bible rather than a correct cosmology make the Bible unreliable and fallible for the study of astronomy, but infallible for the study of theology? Is belief in a flat earth covered with a dome in the midst of the waters separating the waters from the waters (Gen. 1:6) necessary “to be a Christian”?

 

[QUOTE="TCassidy, post: 2226402, member: 2704He has been referred to as "the A.T. Robertson of our day." [/QUOTE]

By whom?

 

I'm not telling you that you're "wrong" to believe in internal inerrancy. Though I think it is a unnecessarily decisive and unprovable theory. I'm telling you I think it is wrong to make inerrancy, however you want to define it, an essential doctrine. Variants do not diminish doctrine, but the very fact they exist at all, does diminish inerrancy, confining it to an existence of repeated qualification. How essential can something be if must be repeatedly redefined, qualified and clarified, even among those who claim to be inerrantists?

 

Just for the record this is the NASB work on these two verses.

Isaiah 40:3
A voice is calling,
“Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.

Matthew 3:3
For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said,
“The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
‘Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight!’”

Here are the two given in the above post from the NRSV:

Isaiah 40:3.
A voice cries out:
“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”

Matthew 3:3.
This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said,
“The voice of one crying out in the wilderness:
“Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.""


Now I realize in my feebleness I must be missing some nuance of the sort that brings contention mentioned in this quote:

I just haven't found it.

Do you?

 

I have the same thinking!

My Bride and I were reflecting upon how it seems that historically there has been a continual line of men God raised up to excel in academia, evangelism, mission work ... and the passing of the torches seems (from our perspective) to have been somewhat fumbled.

Where are the ones who will fill the legacies?

Joel Olsteen.

Perhaps God has begun to allow the people who claim Him to become beggarly of the Spirit because they have become satisfactorily devoid rather than earnestly devout.

 

Do you agree that inspiration is an essential doctrine? Further, do you believe in verbal-plenary inspiration?

The doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration demands a doctrine of inerrancy. 2 Tim. 3:16 and Paul's word there,θεόπνευστος, or "God-breathed," means that Scripture must be inerrant, or God Himself is errant. Many other Scriptures could be given, of course--no doubt you are familiar with them. But try this one: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Ps. 138:2). If Scripture is magnified above God's very name, then inerrancy is essential.

I completely disagree. Variants do not diminish inerrancy at all. As you admit, all doctrine is intact in whatever original text you use. Furthermore, every name of Christ, every event, every NT presentation of the Gospel, every OT or NT prophecy is preserved in every Greek or Hebrew text of the Word of God.

The words you use, "redefined, qualified and clarified," are not words used in textual criticism. I'm not sure where you are getting them, but they don't bother me in the slightest. I see nowhere in the inerrantist position where the doctrine must be "redefined, qualified and clarified" because of the variants. I certainly haven't done that. Would you care to quote an inerrantist author who has done so?

 

Thank you!

 

Nope, there are no mss which validate using literary, form or redaction criticism to determine the original wording of Scripture. Au contraire, the fact is that a scientific study of the mss will show no evidence of redaction, literary re-writing, etc. (If you disagree, name the mss. or you are simply being contrary.) Those disciplines are by and large the tools of liberal theology which seeks to undermine Scripture, though I admit some conservative scholars have embraced them.

For just one example of what I am saying about the mss: "Some argue for the essential unity of 2 Corinthians: the entire book was written at one time. Certainly this coheres with the textual evidence" (An Introduction to the New Testament, by Carson, Moo and Morris, p. 269). I dare you to present mss evidence that 2 Cor. is not a unity.

 

I'll not lose sleep over that. I don't think I've ever discussed soteriology with him. Why discuss tulips when there is so much to learn in textual criticism?

 

At the Lausanne "International Congress on World Evangelism" in 1974, Francis Schaeffer gave a message in which he said that once you cross that line and say the Bible has errors in it, evangelicalism is gone. That doctrine is the sine qua non which undergirds all the other fundamental doctrines.

 

This post is sadly amusing because literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are all concerned EXCLUSIVELY with the oral and literary processes that took place BEFORE a book of the Bible (or a portion thereof such as Gen. 1-11) reached its final literary form. Textual criticism, on the other hand, is concerned EXCLUSIVELY with the literary processes that took place AFTER a book of the Bible (or a portion thereof such as Gen. 1-11) reached its final literary form. 2 Corinthians reached its final form decades or more BEFORE any known manuscripts of it were made, and therefore these manuscripts necessarily reflect EXCLUSIVELY that final form. The same is true of the Gospel According to John, Genesis 1-11, and every other book of the Bible and portions thereof. Therefore, the arguments against literary criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism based upon manuscript evidence are wholly irrational.

 

Not at all. I enjoy textual criticism.

 

Very good. I thank you for proving my point. You are arguing for types of criticism that, since they are not provable from the mss evidence, must be proven from church history. Oh, right, none of the church fathers give such evidence, and no church historian (Eusebius et al) give evidence of such modification of any oral tradition, so all you have left is speculation from vague internal factors. (Care to try and prove the existence of Q with no historical evidence whatsoever?)

I laughed out loud when I read this. Here you are presenting arguments for types of modification of the documents which have no historical evidence whatsoever, and yet you are calling my arguments irrational. Biggrin

 

Not that some areas of theology are not just as complicated.