I agree with all of that, but none of it is the point with respect to inerrancy. </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree… I’ll explain why below.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
God's word is contained in the context of words... Words by themselves do not carry all the meaning by themselves, but the context of the words joined together form the concepts and meaning which is the word of God.
Think of it this way, I can put every word in this post in alphabetical order, but it wouldn't make that much sense. But by placing words in a certain acceptable order, meaning is transmitted which goes beyond the words themselves.
While the texts we have may have errors here and there, the meaning of the message is not in error.
Let me add that I substantially agree with your statement except to add that the words are fully reliable (a stronger phrase than “inerrant”) with respect to anything they are purposed to talk about.The words, in their context, are the words that God inspired and are therefore inerrant with respect to anything they talk about.
Since, as you have agreed above, the concepts and meaning of the words in context are truly God’s word, then we must understand that the intent of the words is what is reliable (or “inerrant”), not words or concepts used in a faulty context.
I strongly disagree. Since the Bible is written communication from God to humankind, we must take into account the nature of the means of communication in order to make theological affirmations regarding the manner of inspiration and reliability.The discussions of inerrancy do not center on hermeneutics (such as you are discussing here) but rather on theology.
Actually, I don’t think this is really the main issue with many people who disagree. I fully affirm that the Bible is true in what it says – and so do many others who reject various theories of inerrancy. I reject inerrancy because it is too low of a view of scripture and is misguided in it’s method. The doctrine of inerrancy is a reaction against modernism that responded to modernism using the same faulty intellectual tools instead of challenging the rationalism and scientism of the era. I won’t be too critical of those saints who first affirmed inerrancy (I probably would have been one), because they were trying to communicate the reliability of God’s world to their corrupt culture. Today’s corrupt culture has rejected modernism and a newer and more accurate understanding of the reliability of scripture is needed.This is an issue of theology, whether or not the Bible is true in what it says.
Please don’t make generalizations regarding this issue because they won’t hold up very well.The liberal/moderate position is qualified on that ... that the Bible is true when it speaks to matters of faith and doctrine, but not necessarily true when it speaks to other matters, such as history, scientific issues, etc.
I like what you said here although you may regret it as a poor choice of words:The conservative position is that the Bible is true in whatever it talks about, that it tells the actual state of affairs.
“…the Bible is true in whatever it talks about…”
You have just affirmed my main point. The purpose of the text must be taken into consideration when we discuss issues of reliability.
Indeed! Now will someone please tell the Southern Baptist leadership that those who have rejected inerrancy are not necessarily “liberals”?This latter is the biblical position. That is what the discussion is about.'
Yes, but since we don’t have the original manuscripts, it makes little difference in practical terms. I fully affirm that the texts we have now are reliable.Your last line is true only in respect to copyist/scribal errors. The original documents from the pen of the author were without error in he whole and in the part.
I greatly appreciate the tone and attitude of your post. I think we can both learn some things with constructive discussions like these.