Inerrant in the original autographs

Surely the church would be better off today with a Puritan worldview, and so would society. Both Modernism and Postmodernism are characterized by a refusal to accept what Gods says, to accept the scriptures as they really are, and a desire and willingness to place our own moral judgment on a par with God's. This is the core of liberalism, the ongoing critical attack upon God's Word for the past 150+ years now. And a good example of why inerrancy is important.

BTW, Baptist Believer, most of the Christians I have met over the years are not KJVO and do not hold to the extreme view of inerrancy you describe, and I certainly don't. But I'm sure the extremists exist. The holding of inerrancy is not extreme, however, regardless of its superficial history. It's unreasonable to think the Puritans or the Second Century Church, for that matter, considered the original Autographs errant.

Much of the confusion about inerrancy arises, IMHO, from the inability of people to separate translation difficulties from interpretation problems. Translation issues, on the whole, don't contaminate the Autographs as just about everybody in the thread has indicated, and MSS issues don't rob the best versions of integrity either, as a number of scholars here on the board have pointed out at great length. Yet the majority of the 100+ versions of the English Bible are flawed, some seriously, and the primary culprit is the interpretation and/or manipulation of men. The remnant at the top, the best English versions available, all suffer from inherent translation issues - God saw to that at the Tower of Babel - but are mostly free of interpretative issues. God has preserved His Word.

So you have bonafide versions of the Word of God that maintain its integrity at one end of the spectrum - such as the KJV & NASB - and manipulated, leavened versions contaminated by men at the other - such as the TNIV & The Message. And, of course, most confusing of all, a group of versions with varying degrees and combinations of both of those factors.

 

I'm too snowed under with responsibilities today to respond in a timely fashion, so I'll have to leave the conversation until tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's an article that does a decent job expressing many of my concerns:

http://www.txbc.org/2000Journals/May2000/May00inerrancydefi.htm

 

No one has seen an original. Originals have never been found (I've read this in my bibliology book by Norman Geisler, heard it from my pastor, read it in other books, etc.).

If you find a few thousand documents that are essentially the same except with very few differences, you can usually tell what the mistakes are. This is how the text of the Bible has been determined by scholars. Have you not ever studied textual criticism or how it's done?

Out of a total of 75 copies, we have:
My grandmother sewed large white and blue shawls (67 copies)

My grandmother sewed white and bue shawls (5 copies)

My grandmother sewed orange shawls (3 copies)

(Missppelling in 2nd one on purpose) Why do you think there are variances in the numbers in some OT books? Probably scribal errors in copying. We don't have a perfect way to deterimine all this, but can tell a lot of the scribal errors this way. And none of the variances effect major doctrines.

It's not just faith, it's evidence and you can read up on how this is done.

A good place is the link I gave before -- not just that link but that site. The NET Bible discusses a lot of these variances and the pro and con arguments for which ones to use and the various translation disagreements that come up as well.

 

I see your point, Charles, but I also have no problem with saying the original autographs are inerrant but there are scribal errors. I have to respond quite often to agnostics, atheists, satanists, wiccans, New Agers and others coming to my website who attack the veracity of the Bible. I've also had to answer these kind of questions when I do public speaking, so I've had to be prepared.

I've had to learn that responding this way is best because it is, I believe, the most honest. These people who email me bring up issues such as the variances in a number or name (as well as other things which are different but can be answered).

I also believe there is an objective meaning in the text itself for everyone, not just what "the Spirit writes on our heart." The Bible has one meaning but many applications.

 

Sorry to tell you this, but your so called evidence only holds up if you start from a point of faith, because you do not have the original to compare the copies to. You don't even know if the copies are from the original that you claim to be inerrant. You take that by faith alone.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I enjoyed reading the article and agree with its primary conclusion, though I'm not sure I accept its premise. For everyone's edification, and in the interest of good discussion, here are the concluding articles of the 1978 Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy that Baptist Believer is referring to. I think it's noteworthy that both Norman Geisler (free-will) and R.C.Sproul (calvinist) were key players of the 300 scholars involved in this work.

The entire document can be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

 

The manuscripts were clearly copies of something since they all say essentially the same thing. I think that's pretty much a given.

True, there is no original that has been found (and probably a good thing, too, as then people could say it was tampered with and there is no "pure" original) but my point was that we could tell what the original says based on the copies. The copies themselves give evidence that there is an original.

 

Proof, or evidence, is not limited to the physical or tangible realm alone. Hopefully this thread will get somewhere and cover some of that. As Marcia said, you can read about it. One example is above, in Article X of the Chicago Statement.

 

Does anyone question Shakespeare, Caesar's writings, Homer, etc. - yet we have no originals for them. But nobody is saying we need "faith" to believe their writings are real and based on originals.

Also see
http://people.clemson.edu/~sf/books/apology/Chapter4.html
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm

 

Ivy,

I wholeheartedly subscribe to the CSI, and am in fact, currently re-reading a book by RC Sproul on the inerrancy of Scripture where he gives a detailed commentary on each point of the document called "Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine". Stating that it is by faith alone that we accept the Scripture as inerrant in no way disagrees with Article X.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Marcia,

I don't disagree that they are copies of something. That is obvious. That they are copies of ultimately the original autographs of Scripture is taken by faith since we do not have the original to compare it to.

Joseph Botwinick

 

1. To an extent, whether you are to admit it or not, without an orginal autograph of something, you are taking it as faith that the copies are from Shakespeare, Ceaser, etc...

2. People don't talk about taking the above literature by faith because none of those writings claim to be the Word of God, and therefore, don't matter as much.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, I see what you mean. But it is important to note that 'faith alone' is not the only way to apprehend Biblical inerrancy. Physical evidence and logic can be major players in the quest, and often are, as Article X suggests.

 

<Side note: I see this new format automatically removes quotes when you quote a post which really keeps down the length of posts! :thumbs: >

I can see your point, Joseph. I still wouldn't say though, that's it all a matter of faith. I think it is reasonable to deduce from the evidence of many manuscript copies that an original existed. It's deductive thinking, using reason and logic, which I think God expects us to use.

Faith does comes in as far as whether to believe it is the word of God or not.

 

What does everyone think about liberalism and inerrancy? Is there a solid connection?

Liberalism of all kinds pretty much requires rejection of a straight-up interpretation of the Scriptures, but are most liberals offended by the idea of inerrancy?

 

Earlier posts have objected to "inerrancy" as a modern theological misstep. In truth, it is a modern word for what God's people have always believed about revelation and inspiration. The word became necessary because apostates within the churches were muddying the water with weaselisms.

The most enlightening book I've read on this topic, and I've read several, is Stewart Custer's Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy?.

 

Well said, Pipedude. Custer's book is a good one. And as he says, theopneustos ("God-breathed," 2 Tim. 3:16) inspiration does demand inerrancy.

Even evangelicals who reject Fundamentalism agree on this. Francis Schaeffer, in commenting on the inerrancy statement of the Lausanne Covenant as far back as 1976, when this controversy was just beginning, made inerrancy the sine qua non of Evangelicalism. In other words, to this great theologian cum philosopher, if you don't believe in inerrancy you are not an evangelical. Call yourself something else.

"Holding to a strong view of Scripture or not holding to it is the watershed of the evangelical world. The first direction in which we must face is to say most lovingly but clearly: Evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take a full view of Scripture and those who do not" (No Final Conflict, p. 13).

"There is the danger of evangelicalism becoming less than evangelical, of its not really holding to the Bible as being without error in all that it affirms. We are then left with the victory of the existential methodology (neo-orthodoxy--JOJ) under the name of evangelicalism. Holding to a strong view of Scripture or not holding to it is the watershed of the evangelical world" (ibid, 48).

 

Innerancy is essential to a proper understanding of scripture as well. Those who don't believe in innerancy can argue almost anything by throwing away certain scriptures that "must be in error".

Is it too much to believe that God would preserve His word through the ages? Particularly when we see all the manuscript evidence that we have.

So yes it is a matter of faith, and also evidence. It is also an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Heresy comes from not accepting the innerancy of scripture.

 

Well said, Dave. :thumbs: And that is why it the doctrine is the sine qua non of evangelical/fundamental Christianity. If you don't believe in inerrancy you have started down the proverbial slippery slope, and have no solid place left to stand.

 

Pipedude, JoJ, Dave, Marcia:

Good posts. Very clear and well expressed. Good references.

Weaselisms. :laugh: What a great description. I love that.

And I would say the current apostate church stands on the shoulders of the apostates you describe.

Agreed.

Yes, I couldn't say it any better. I wonder if you guys (generic :flower: - you too, Marcia, you're one of us) can find any weakness in the following thought process. It's late and this is fast, but I really wanna know what ya'll think:

Voluminous manuscript evidence points to inerrancy in the original autographs. Logic itself, in any number of ways, also points to and demands inerrancy.

For instance, the scriptures claim to be inspired and authored by God the Holy Ghost. If that is true, then either the sciptures are inerrant in the originals, or God had nothing to do with the original autographs, in which case we should trash our Bibles and all the extra-Biblical material that is dependent upon them. That is to say, it is impossible, by definition, for God to lie or err, and therefore impossible for Him to inspire error, for if He did He would cease to be God, which is impossible. The claim of inspiration itself demands God's ability to carry out His authorship of the original autographs using human vessels. Hence, if God had anything AT ALL to do with the Bible, logic demands that the original autographs are, again by definition, inerrant.

So there is no middle ground here. If the originals contain one, single error, then by definition God cannot be the Author of them and further, had nothing to do with them, in which case the Bible is a fraud. An argument can be made that God has not preserved His Word, but no argument can be made against original inerrancy while simultaneously associating God with the scriptures. Further, there is no preservation argument possible without inerrancy, for without inerrancy there is nothing to preserve.

Finally, the same voluminous evidence, physical and otherwise, points to God's preservation of His Word, including various translations and versions, to the extent that they represent the original MSS.