Inerrant in the original autographs

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Of course the originals are inerrant.
If God gives us scripture, it will be without error. We have copies of the originals and they are close enough to show where there are scribal errors or other variances (such as in names of people or places).

Marcia,

A few questions:

1. How do you know that they are actually copies of the originals? Have you evern seen an original?

2. How do you know that the copies of the originals are close enough to show where there are scribal errors or other variances? Have you ever seen an original?

3. How can you make any determination about the copy without ever seeing the original?

If God is perfect, how can he inspire imperfect writing? Does God make mistakes in grammar or fact? Yes, he used men but he is perfectly capable of getting them to write it down inerrantly. Either the original manuscripts are the word of God or they are not. The idea that the originals are without error reflects the revelation of a perfect God, not modern concepts of anything.

There are books that explain this process, even websites.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=697

So far, I think you make many assumptions about what you think is a faithful copy of an original you have never seen on faith. This is, btw, a good thing, in my estimation, and is reasonable. I, personally, also take the Bible on faith that it is the perfect Word of God that is preserved. If you were, however, to ask me to prove this scientifically, I truthfully don't think any of us could do this. This is why it is impossible to believe in God without a spiritual re-birth (regeneration) by the hand of God in our lives. Totally depraved, sinful man seeks worldly evidence. Regenerated man seeks God and his kingdom.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Gold Dragon]

Two other issues I have with the "originals are inerrant" position are:

1. We don't have the originals so what good is that?
2. Even if the transmission of the originals was inerrant, the interpretation of scripture is still done by errant fallible men and often full of error.

I make these points not to shake people's faith in the bible or traditional interpretations of the bible. Modernist terms like inerrancy and the rationalistic reductionism of modernist philosophy wants us to say that there is absolute scientific certainty in what we believe. But if there was certainty, why would we need faith?

I believe a more honest and biblical approach is one that recognizes the lack of certainty in the scientific evidence available to us, and by faith, believe it anyway.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Gold Dragon:
That is exactly the sort of modernistic nonsense that I wish to avoid by not using the term inerrant. How do you calculate the probability of something not being the Word of God?

First, you find a theologian who is known for teaching what you call 'modernistic nonsense', in this case R.C.Sproul. Then, you carefully unpack the argument that God is not the author of the scriptures, then logically reverse the process Biblically using the available empirical evidence. Then, you get a mathematician to calculate the probablility of the prophesies of the Bible being fulfilled in detail that have already been fulfilled in detail and combine that piece of evidence with the rest.

This has been done, BTW, by a number of people. I would look it up and link it but I happen to know that you have a habit of refusing to look and evaluate extraneous data when it promises to prove you wrong, as was the case in the Purpose-Driven debate some months back. Here again, I will not do your homework for you as I would for many, because of your argumental bias.

Gold Dragon:
By faith in the words of the bible and what God has done on this earth, I believe the scriptures is the inspired word of God that is authoritative and trustworthy. No need for silly modernistic logical proofs.

Naahh, apologetics is a silly business.

Gold Dragon:
While I would never say that the bible is errant, I avoid using the word inerrant to describe the bible. I fully believe it is God's inspired Word that is authoritative and trustworthy. Adding the modernistic descriptor "inerrant", even to the autographs, is one that I find unnesessary and extraneous to scripture itself.

Typical postmodern intellectual mush. Never say inerrant because it may be offensive. You believe the autographs are the INSPIRED Word of God, but may possibly contain error? 'Oh no!' 'They are authoritative and trustworthy, and I would never say the autographs are errant, it's just that modernistic descriptor, that "inerrant" word?!!'

Has it ever occured to you that could possibly be a contradiction?

 

[Gold Dragon]

First, you find a theologian who is known for teaching what you call 'modernistic nonsense', in this case R.C.Sproul. Then, you carefully unpack the argument that God is not the author of the scriptures, then logically reverse the process Biblically using the available empirical evidence. Then, you get a mathematician to calculate the probablility of the prophesies of the Bible being fulfilled in detail that have already been fulfilled in detail and combine that piece of evidence with the rest.

This has been done, BTW, by a number of people. I would look it up and link it but I happen to know that you have a habit of refusing to look and evaluate extraneous data when it promises to prove you wrong, as was the case in the Purpose-Driven debate some months back. Here again, I will not do your homework for you as I would for many, because of your argumental bias.

Hey, if you don't want to back up your statements, its no skin off my back.

Naahh, apologetics is a silly business.

I frequently engage in the highly modernistic activity of apologetics which is rife with limitations.

Never say inerrant because it may be offensive.

I believe not saying inerrant is more offensive to Christians than saying inerrent is offensive to non-Christians. I don't mind the offensive option.

You believe the autographs are the INSPIRED Word of God, but may possibly contain error? 'Oh no!' 'They are authoritative and trustworthy, and I would never say the autographs are errant, it's just that modernistic descriptor, that "inerrant" word?!!'

Has it ever occured to you that could possibly be a contradiction?

Just living up to my postmodern expectations of being full of contradiction. For the record, I never said God's word may possibly contain error.

Anyway, I don't see us getting anywhere in this discussion so why don't we just agree to disagree, mkay? :wavey:

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Gold Dragon:
1. We don't have the originals so what good is (the 'originals are inerrant' position)?

You've got to be kidding??!! Take 5 minutes, or 5 hours, and consider the implications of: a) God The Holy Spirit erred when He inspired the original autographs, and b) God did not inspire the autographs as the scriptures claim.

Gold Dragon:
2. Even if the transmission of the originals was inerrant ...

There again, if the Holy Ghost couldn't get it right then there is nothing to talk about. I'll take my collection of Bibles, and you take yours, and we'll meet in the Midwest somewhere and have a Bible-burning party. We'll have a big party to kick off a life of eat, drink, and be merry since that is all there could ever be for us. Of course, we wouldn't be brothers anymore, just two dudes that used to believe a falacy. But I feel sure we'd get along great, at least we'd have that. Maybe we could use our Bible knowledge to scheme a way to make a lot of money since others have had great success doing it. There'd be everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Gold Dragon:
2. ... the interpretation of scripture is still done by errant fallible men and often full of error.

Now here we might have something we can profitably talk about, assuming we can get over the hump. This goes down the translation/interpretation/version road that leads to fruit and understanding, IMO, but it is a road, to the best of my knowledge, that no thread on this board has been willing to travel.:Fish:

 

[John of Japan]

I read the whole thread and have not yet seen anyone note this, so here is my 2 yen worth: any manuscript, original language text or honest translation you read in any language (and I read Japanese, Greek, some Hebrew, Latin and Chinese, and oh yes, English) will have the same truths, all of the same doctrines (with the possible exception of snake handling, depending on what you believe about the longer ending of Mark :tongue3: ), every single name of Jesus Christ, every event of biblical history (with some small variance in details), etc.

I guarantee you that my church in Japan is exactly like yours in doctrine and practice as long as we both do our best to follow the Word of God in our language as translated.

God did not need to give us the original manuscripts. We have exactly what we need, inspired by God (by derivation in translation), to produce godliness, correct doctrine, right practice and correct church polity. The problem with most posts I saw in this thread is that you guys are nit-picking! It is the truth of the Word of God that is most important, not crossing the tau and dotting the yod.

Having said that, for the record: I believe in verbal-plenary inspiration and inerrancy in the original mss. (I even believe a case can be made for inerrancy in any original language text.)

 

[Gold Dragon]

You've got to be kidding??!! Take 5 minutes, or 5 hours, and consider the implications of: a) God The Holy Spirit erred when He inspired the original autographs, and b) God did not inspire the autographs as the scriptures claim.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit erred when He inspired the autographs. I've stated many times in this thread that I believe by faith, God inspired the scriptures.

There again, if the Holy Ghost couldn't get it right then there is nothing to talk about. I'll take my collection of Bibles, and you take yours, and we'll meet in the Midwest somewhere and have a Bible-burning party.

I believe the Holy Ghost got it right and guided the transmission of the scripture through the ages. And that is why we have the reliable, inspired and authoritative bibles today that are useful to me and in no need of recycling at this moment since they are in pretty good condition. And since I rarely use paper bibles anymore, they'll probably stay in pretty good condition for a while.

 

[Andy T.]

Two other issues I have with the "originals are inerrant" position are:

1. We don't have the originals so what good is that?
2. Even if the transmission of the originals was inerrant, the interpretation of scripture is still done by errant fallible men and often full of error.

I make these points not to shake people's faith in the bible or traditional interpretations of the bible. Modernist terms like inerrancy and the rationalistic reductionism of modernist philosophy wants us to say that there is absolute scientific certainty in what we believe. But if there was certainty, why would we need faith?

I believe a more honest and biblical approach is one that recognizes the lack of certainty in the scientific evidence available to us, and by faith, believe it anyway.

Gold Dragon, it sounds like you are pretty certain in your beliefs about uncertainty. Give it up - pomo loses in the end. You may have your fads like the Emergent Church (pomo version), but they come and they go. Abandon pomo thinking were it will end up eventually - in the trash heep of man-made philosophies.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon, it sounds like you are pretty certain in your beliefs about uncertainty. Give it up - pomo loses in the end. You may have your fads like the Emergent Church (pomo version), but they come and they go. Abandon pomo thinking were it will end up eventually - in the trash heep of man-made philosophies.

I agree that postmodernism and the emergent church will one day go by the wayside as something new arises from them.

 

[Gold Dragon]

What are some examples in the copied manuscripts that are shown to be errant? Are they simply in some mistyped numerical values like in the O.T.? Or are there more significant errors in the copies? Is there any good reading material on this subject via the internet?

If you are looking for significant manuscript variants, I've found this site to be a helpful primer.

A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants

 

[Baptist Believer]

I agree that postmodernism and the emergent church will one day go by the wayside as something new arises from them.

And to make sure that the point is not missed, POST-modernism developed because of the profound deficiencies in the modernism (the worldview of scientism and anti-supernaturalistic rationalism) that much of our religious culture has embraced.

When modernists (that is, theological liberals) starting their systematic attack on religious faith around the time Darwin's theories we taking hold, faithful Christians reacted by embracing, affirming and defending the fundamentals of Christian doctrine and became known as "fundamentalists". But in their attempt to answer their critics, they increasingly tied themselves to the reductionist philosophical outlook of the rising modernism that demanded certainty (a demand derived from the overzealous misapplication of the scientific method) regarding any truth claims. As a result, Christian doctrine became tied up in rationalistic proofs (as if someone could be brought to Christ through reason or intellect!) and Gnostic tendencies toward intellectual mastery of doctrinal systems without the corresponding need to actually implement the teachings of Jesus in the believers life. Therefore, fundamentalists and liberals eventually ended up as two sides of the same modernist coin... the fundamentalists had much better, sounder doctrine, but both sides were held back by the faulty worldview they shared.

The blind acceptance of modernism is one of the major things that holds back the Western church. Postmodernist expressions of Christianity break out of some of the traps of modernism, but there are tendencies in postmodernism that will greatly damage the church if they uncritically to that worldview.

 

[Andy T.]

Then let's go back to a worldview that is neither pomo or mo. The Puritan worldview is a good one for starters.

Certainty is not peculiar to modernism, BTW. When I read the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles, I sense a good amount of certainty from them. And they weren't modernists.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Certainty is not peculiar to modernism, BTW. When I read the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles, I sense a good amount of certainty from them. And they weren't modernists.

Not certainty, in itself, but an obsession with certainty that lends itself to a house of cards theology. For example, the thinking that drives KJVO views - if we don't have a Bible today that is completely without deviation from the original autographs, then we don't have a reliable Bible.

And how often have we heard the "slippery slope" analogy that assumes that if a person you disagree with doesn't hold to exactly the same theological constructs you hold, that they will certainly fall away from the faith altogether? There seems to be no sense that the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of people, giving them faith to believe even when they don't have all the answers worked out.

 

[Andy T.]

How is inerrancy a "house of cards theology"?

 

[Baptist Believer]

How is inerrancy a "house of cards theology"?

Haven't you ever heard preachers say that if there is one mistake in the Bible, that you wouldn't be able to trust anything it says? And then in another context, they readily admit that only the original manuscripts are free from error.

That whole line of reasoning is built upon an obsession with certainty, not on a living faith with Jesus whose words and teachings are preserved in the Bible.

The inerrancy issue is at the root of the KJVO controversies as well. If God has enough power to produce an inerrant original, even though he is using falliable human kind to produce it, why doesn't He have enough power or interest to preserve scripture without any deviations or errors for Christians today? That's why KJVO people cling to the Bibles of their youth and have built a whole system of arguments to discredit anything that is different than their KJV.

The doctrine of inerrancy is useless without a doctrine of preservation, unless you define inerrancy as simply "freedom from doctrinal error". Otherwise, you are proclaiming that you possess an errant Bible. And that just puts the wrong emphasis on things.

What is wrong with just saying that the Bible is reliable? That's a much stronger statement than saying that the Bible is free from errors.

 

[Andy T.]

I call things like my 2000 Ford Taurus "reliable", not Holy Scripture. My Ford is reliable in that it does not need many repairs. But if tomorrow I go out and it doesn't start, that won't surprise me because it's got a lot of miles on it. But it is still reliable.

God's word is perfect (Psa. 19:7). If it is merely reliable, then how do I know which parts are fully trustworthy and which parts are not?

And faith is at issue here. Ultimately, to believe in inerrancy is a matter of faith. It has nothing to do with scientism. I have faith that God's Word is without error.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I call things like my 2000 Ford Taurus "reliable", not Holy Scripture. My Ford is reliable in that it does not need many repairs. But if tomorrow I go out and it doesn't start, that won't surprise me because it's got a lot of miles on it. But it is still reliable.

It wouldn't surprise me if you Ford didn't start either... And I wouldn't call a Ford reliable anyway.

I'm using the word is a very specific and strong sense. The Bible is reliable for faith and practice.

God's word is perfect (Psa. 19:7).

The Hebrew idea of perfection relates to completeness and suitability for the task. The Bible is certainly complete and suitable for the task of guiding humankind in godliness and faith toward Christ.

If it is merely reliable, then how do I know which parts are fully trustworthy and which parts are not?

Where did you get the idea that there are untrustworthy parts? If the Bible is reliable, then all of it is reliable. Your analogy to an automobile is faulty because automobiles are not designed to last forever and have a very different nature than a message.

And faith is at issue here. Ultimately, to believe in inerrancy is a matter of faith.

Yes. But it is not necessarily a helpful position.

It has nothing to do with scientism.

It has to do with modernism. Somehow the church survived all the way into the late 19th century without the inerrantist position.

I have faith that God's word is without error.

I have faith, and experience, that the Bible is completely reliable. I know varient readings have crept into the pages, but I don't have to worry about it because the scripture is doctrinally sound, complete and suited to the purposes for which it was intended. The Bible is not an end in itself. It exists to connect us to God through Jesus Christ.

 

[Andy T.]

"It has to do with modernism. Somehow the church survived all the way into the late 19th century without the inerrantist position."

So the church before this time believed in an errant Bible? The Puritans believed the Bible erred? The Reformers? The Early Church Fathers? They all believed that the Bible erred?

 

[Baptist Believer]

So the church before this time believed in an errant Bible?
The Puritans believed the Bible erred? The Reformers? The Early Church Fathers? They all believed that the Bible erred?

I'm sure they believed in a reliable Bible. I'm referring to a historical doctrine of inerrancy that developed in the late 19th century.

I see we have moved from a discussion of the issue of inerrancy to a place where you are trying to ascribe ideas to me that I've never claimed nor believe.

 

[Andy T.]

I'm sure they believed in a reliable Bible. I'm referring to a historical doctrine of inerrancy that developed in the late 19th century.

I see we have moved from a discussion of the issue of inerrancy to a place where you are trying to ascribe ideas to me that I've never claimed nor believe.

I'm not trying to ascribe anything to you. I am just wondering if inerrancy was invented in the 19th century, then Christians before that must have not believed in inerrancy. So if one rejects inerrancy, then one must believe the Bible errs (even if it only errs on minor points). So is that what the Puritans, Reformers, et al believed?