Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

So where do you get that Peter managed a business? I'm sure fishermen 2,000 years ago had to be very well read. Sarcasm intended. You can't accept part of what Ehrman wrote but ignore the parts that conflict with your own belief. Either he is an expert in his field and knows what he is talking about or he doesn't. As for Mr Greenleaf, what makes him more believable than the thousands of historians, translators, and scientists who remain unbelievers? Are you claiming that the majority of highly intelligent scientists archaeologists anthropologists and historians are wrong because Greenleaf supports you presupposed position?

What a bunch of nonsence. Are you suggesting that if a man is right once he there fore must always be right? Ehrman I am sure on purpose to sell books likes to say "the bible" has 400,000 errors because that sounds provocative. The truth is when he is pressed he admits that that is 400,000 errors in the whole textual tradition not in any single bible. I would never completely trust him. I do have to accept everything a person says to agree with a point or two. I didn't even say I think his numbers were right, I use them because I like to cut down on the false things that critics use to dismiss the bibe. So I chose a critics number because it wasn't even bad enough to cause any major problems. No, using expert testimony is very valid and is used in debate and trials all over the world every day. In fact you are questioning expert testimony one sentence after you gave it, in stating for some reason, Ehrman is perfect. I used Green Leaf and a few others because they are the best not just another scholar. It would be like using Newton and Einstien for sceince calculus and physics. My point wasn't that Greenleaf said it, so it must be a fact. The point was the silly statments made by critics used to set a tone of obvious dismissal is far from the truth. Christianity while many claims falling short of absolute known fact is anything but something that can be easily dismissed based on preference but falsely linked to evidence.

 

[1robin]

Of course he was ...

I do not make it a habit of debateing srcastic people who can't make a complete point. I also do not tolerate being called anti-semitic or a liar. I do not know you nor you me and so I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time. However you need to step it up and have a discussion rather than sniping thought fragments at me and making accusations or I am done here. Paul was an expert on the law and there existed at the time no greater expert on the law than his teacher. I have never ever heard a single claim against this. Either put a few actual sentences together or desist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not make it a habit of debateing srcastic people who can't make a complete point.

See here. The only 'habit' evident here is your transparent evasions.

 

[Reverend Richard]

.......Ehrman I am sure on purpose to sell books likes to say "the bible" has 400,000 errors because that sounds provocative. The truth is when he is pressed he admits that that is 400,000 errors in the whole textual tradition not in any single bible.....................................

I am currently reading Ehrman's "Forged", so this thread caught my eye (again).

As a former conservative Christian (and a former Baptist), I am curious about your highlighted comment above. So are you saying that 400,000 errors in the "textual tradition" is only a minor flaw since these errors don't exist in any single Bible. Does this distinction make it all okay? Could you elaborate?

 

[1robin]

See here. The only 'habit' evident here is your transparent evasions.

I quit paying attention to you post after the anti-semitic garbage. There is no one who is as consistent in defending and promoting the Jewish/Hebrew people as I am. The fact you could be so diametrically wrong on that issue has left me doubtfull of anything else you claim. Not only was it completely inaccurate and about as far away from truth as it is possible to get it was dishonorable as well. Either put a few actual sentences and make a descent claim (that is not an incorrect appeal to the obsurd) or I have no need of this discussion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I quit paying attention to you post ...

Hence your repeated responses.

Again, you're fooling no one and doing so in a most convincing manner.​

 

[1robin]

I am currently reading Ehrman's "Forged", so this thread caught my eye (again).

As a former conservative Christian (and a former Baptist), I am curious about your highlighted comment above. So are you saying that 400,000 errors in the "textual tradition" is only a minor flaw since these errors don't exist in any single Bible. Does this distinction make it all okay? Could you elaborate?

Yes, I am giving very general numbers and depending on how important and in depth you wish to get I will need to dial in the specifics of whatever issue you wish more information on. If you will review the Chicage statement of faith you will note that only the original revelation was guaranteed to be perfect. Short of God killing anyone who forgot a comma I do not know how that perfection would survive copying. As it is it exceeds by many times any expectation for an ancient text. The 400,000 thousand I believe only concern the NT. The NT has approx 180,000 words per copy. Just the NT manuscript tradition alone has 24,000 texts. That is 4 billion 320 million words. That is one error for every 10,800 words. I have ran the numbers before and it works out to about 5% error in a typical modern bible. Since well over 90% of these errors are known and indicated in every modern bible then the issue almost dissappears. I am not sure how accurate you want to get. I have rounded up or down somewhat and there may be some qualifiers that need to be addressed as well as for the fact that I have used Ehrmans claims of the percentage that is meaningfull errors vs unimportant ones. In other words if you writing a thesis you need more precise numbers. You can look up the transcript from The Ehrman Dr White debate is you really want to dig into this. Another good standard to emply is to compare the NT against every other work of ancient history and the bible is far far out of every other works league it is virtually supernatural.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, ...

And what do you deduce from good copying skills?

 

[1robin]

Hence your repeated responses.

Again, you're fooling no one and doing so in a most convincing manner.
​

That is it I am out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is it I am out.

There ya go not ignoring me again

Now, what do you deduce from good copying skills? Oh, and while we're at it, what do you know about the source being copied?

 

[Reverend Richard]

Yes, I am giving very genaral numbers and depending on how important and in depth you wish to get I will need to dial in the specifics of whatever issue you wish more information on. If you will review the Chicage statement of faith you will note that only the original revelation was guaranteed to be perfect. Short of God killing anyone who forgot a comma I do not know how that perfection would survive copying. As it is it exceeds by many times any expectation for an ancient text. The 400,000 thousand I believe only concern the NT. The NT has approx 180,000 words per copy. Just the NT manuscript tradition alone has 24,000 texts. That is 4 billion 320 million words. That is one error for every 10,800 words. I have ran the numbers before and it works out to about 5% error in a typical modern bible. Since well over 90% of these errors are known and indicated in every modern bible then the issue almost dissappears. I am not sure how accurate you want to get. I have rounded up or down somewhat and there may be some qualifiers that need to be addressed as well as for the fact that I have used Ehrmans claims of the percentage that is meaningfull errors vs unimportant ones. In other words if you writing a thesis you need more precise numbers. You can look up the transcript from The Ehrman Dr White debate is you really want to dig into this. Another good standard to emply is to compare the NT against every other work of ancient history and the bible is far far out of every other works league it is virtually supernatural.

Okay. Thanks for your explanation, but based on the numbers you provided, that 5% error would have to be based on faith, and not on mathematical probability functions in terms of proving accuracy or infallibility.

Why? It seems pretty clear not only from Ehrman, but from other (even Christian) scholars that many books of the New Testament were not written by the authors attributed to them. This is especially true of the apostle Paul. I accept the fact that many (if not most) conservative Christians rely on their faith when accepting the claim of infallibility for Christian doctrine. I did that for many years when I was a Southern Baptist. However, it wasn't until I began to read more about Jewish beliefs and Jewish history that the New Testament began to unravel. When viewed from a Jewish perspective, I understand why the Jews never accepted Christ as the messiah. Christians use Old Testament prophecy as support for their claim that Jesus is the promised messiah, but they conveniently ignore prophecies that were not fulfilled - prophecies that, for the Jews, were the key events that would preceed or announce the messiah's arrival.

In summary, between the forgeries, the scriptural errors, and the cherry picking of prophecy to prove a point, I find Bible inerrancy to be a theological rabbit hole, or at best circular logic.

Now having said that, I don't believe we should through the baby Jesus out with the baptismal water. The Bible is still a useful tool for spiritual guidance and solace, just as are many other forms of scripture such as the Bhgavad Gita, the Pali Canon, or the Hindu Vedas.

But that's just my view...

 

[1robin]

There ya go not ignoring me again

Now, what do you deduce from good copying skills? Oh, and while we're at it, what do you know about the source being copied?

Consider yourself fully ingnored starting right now.

 

[1robin]

Okay. Thanks for your explanation, but based on the numbers you provided, that 5% error would have to be based on faith, and not on mathematical probability functions in terms of proving accuracy or infallibility.

Why? It seems pretty clear not only from Ehrman, but from other (even Christian) scholars that many books of the New Testament were not written by the authors attributed to them. This is especially true of the apostle Paul. I accept the fact that many (if not most) conservative Christians rely on their faith when accepting the claim of infallibility for Christian doctrine. I did that for many years when I was a Southern Baptist. However, it wasn't until I began to read more about Jewish beliefs and Jewish history that the New Testament began to unravel. When viewed from a Jewish perspective, I understand why the Jews never accepted Christ as the messiah. Christians use Old Testament prophecy as support for their claim that Jesus is the promised messiah, but they conveniently ignore prophecies that were not fulfilled - prophecies that, for the Jews, were the key events that would preceed or announce the messiah's arrival.

In summary, between the forgeries, the scriptural errors, and the cherry picking of prophecy to prove a point, I find Bible inerrancy to be a theological rabbit hole, or at best circular logic.

Now having said that, I don't believe we should through the baby Jesus out with the baptismal water. The Bible is still a useful tool for spiritual guidance and solace, just as are many other forms of scripture such as the Bhgavad Gita, the Pali Canon, or the Hindu Vedas.

But that's just my view...

I am sorry, out of time. I will pick this up again soon. Shalom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Consider yourself fully ingnored starting right now.

Does that mean you won't answer my questions?

 

[waitasec]

Does that mean you won't answer my questions?

formally, yes.

 

[1robin]

Okay. Thanks for your explanation, but based on the numbers you provided, that 5% error would have to be based on faith, and not on mathematical probability functions in terms of proving accuracy or infallibility.

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I was discussing textual accuracy alone, not whether the text is historically accurate, that is a different subject. In the age of computers it is a very simple thing to compare modern bibles with the oldest extant texts. They even sell software that allows you to do it. Since any textual tradition that has prolific and early manuscript reproduction even without the original copies, allows for those originals to be reliably known, then the error percentage of the bible can be accurately known, but never perfectly known. When compared to every other ancient text the bible is so overwhelmingly more reliable (sometimes with a thousand times greater attestation) that failure to see providence in it strains credulity.

Why? It seems pretty clear not only from Ehrman, but from other (even Christian) scholars that many books of the New Testament were not written by the authors attributed to them. This is especially true of the apostle Paul.

There is some truth in the claim we can not be 100% sure who the authors of a few books were however this gets blown way out of purportion. Haveing a name for the author does not make something any more reliable. Experts have said the Gospels were no doubt written by eye witnesses and contain no embelishment or signs of myth. The bible also said the holy spirit was sent to remind them of the things they had witnessed so when they were written is not really a problem either. I personally believe we have the correct authors for all but maybe one NT book but even if we didn't the information is no less reliable. Simon Greenleaf the greatest expert in evidence presentation in human history said that the testimony contained in the bible meets every requirement of modern law.

I accept the fact that many (if not most) conservative Christians rely on their faith when accepting the claim of infallibility for Christian doctrine. I did that for many years when I was a Southern Baptist

I can't speak for every one but I can't stand blind faith. My faith is a reasoned faith. However when 25000 historical corroberations and thousands of prophecies turn out to be 100% accurate as well as scientific claims it is not that much of a leap of faith to accept what can't be verified.

However, it wasn't until I began to read more about Jewish beliefs and Jewish history that the New Testament began to unravel. When viewed from a Jewish perspective, I understand why the Jews never accepted Christ as the messiah. Christians use Old Testament prophecy as support for their claim that Jesus is the promised messiah, but they conveniently ignore prophecies that were not fulfilled - prophecies that, for the Jews, were the key events that would preceed or announce the messiah's arrival.

This is a very old contention. There are countless sites and books that do a better job of explaining Isaiah and other prophecies than I can here. Usually the problems arise because the reader does not know when the prophecies apply to Jesus and when to Israel. I can sympathise with that as it is confusing. There are more than 350 detailed prophecies concerning Christ alone. With that many tests which Christ passed, to consider any one could meet them by chance or even by human design strains reason. If you do not mind me asking are you born again? Did you accept Christ as savior and have the holy spirit come into your heart? I only ask as the question's answer either way makes a great deal of difference and I can taylor any responses.

In summary, between the forgeries, the scriptural errors, and the cherry picking of prophecy to prove a point, I find Bible inerrancy to be a theological rabbit hole, or at best circular logic.

What do you mean by innerency? If you mean that the bible is not perfect, then I agree it isn't. If you mean that it has errors that make it insuffecient for the needs of every Christian I do not agree. Even Ehrman admitted that not a single error exists withing core doctrine. Since they are or virtually are all known then there isn't really an issue at all.

Now having said that, I don't believe we should through the baby Jesus out with the baptismal water. The Bible is still a useful tool for spiritual guidance and solace, just as are many other forms of scripture such as the Bhgavad Gita, the Pali Canon, or the Hindu Vedas.

Philosophy states that if two claims to absolute truth are contradictary then it is impossible both are true. Trying to justify or promote oriental pluralism is a very tough assignment. Most religions contradict in their core claims with each other and most with themselves, and so can't all be true. Any God that would hide bits of truth in mountains of contradictions and false religous rhetoric is schizophrenic and I do not want to associate with him. Christ may be called either an evil madman or the savior of the world, what he is not is just another good teacher or prophet.

But that's just my view...

I can respect that.

 

[Shermana]

Even Ehrman admitted that not a single error exists withing core doctrine.

An example of where even Ehrman can get it wrong. There are numerous issues that can affect how one interprets the support for doctrines like antinominaism (1 Cor 9:20) and the Trinity (1 John 5:7). When it's stated that .1% of these issues are important, they ARE important.

 

[1robin]

An example of where even Ehrman can get it wrong.

It was not Ehrmans contention it was Dr White's (Ehrman just reluctantly agreed) and is shared by many respected scholars of textual criticism. In fact I have never heard a counter argument to it from either side but imagine there are some just not many.

There are numerous issues that can affect how one interprets the support for doctrines like antinominaism (1 Cor 9:20) and the Trinity (1 John 5:7). When it's stated that .1% of these issues are important, they ARE important.

Neither of those issues effect what I need to get to Heaven. I fact I was saved without ever hearing of one and knowing very little about the other. I did not say anything about importance I said core doctrine. Of course core and important are relavant values. I have just repeated what even opposing scholars admit. Since as far as I know all errors are known and indicated there is actually no issue at all with errors. In the case of the Trinity for instance. If Jesus is God then you must believe in his sacrifice and atoneing death to be saved. If he was only empowered by God the once again you still must believe in his sacrifice and atoneing death to be saved. I guess it would be relevant to what you consider core doctrine. I have resolved to evade Trinity debates because they do not have any actuall effect on my relationship with Christ/God. To me it is not worth the effort to fight that out.

 

[Shermana]

Neither of those issues effect what I need to get to Heaven.

In your interpretation. In mine, Jesus was quite clear that Lawlessness (which is promoted by the funny versions of 1 Cor 9:20 that make their way into most translations) will get you a one way ticket to NOT-Heaven.

I have resolved to evade Trinity debates because they do not have any actuall effect on my relationship with Christ/G

Of course core and important are relavant values

If something is important, then it will affect interpretation of "core doctrines".

I have resolved that the Trinity does in fact give people completely wrong understandings of how God works and how Jesus's sacrifice applies and is the basis for many a manmade doctrine. As you say, I do consider it a core doctrine of great import. It could very well apply to what John says about not believing JESUS came in the flesh. (Which is a common argument by Trinitarians who don't understand its referring to proto Docetism).

 

[1robin]

In your interpretation. In mine, Jesus was quite clear that Lawlessness (which is promoted by the funny versions of 1 Cor 9:20 that make their way into most translations) will get you a one way ticket to NOT-Heaven.

Only if Christ is presumed to be something other than what he claims to be. This may be irresolvable between us.

If something is important, then it will affect interpretation of "core doctrines".

It certainly didn't stop me from being born again and haveing a relationship with the Divine. Any other concerns I can live with.

I have resolved that the Trinity does in fact give people completely wrong understandings of how God works and how Jesus's sacrifice applies and is the basis for many a manmade doctrine. As you say, I do consider it a core doctrine of great import. It could very well apply to what John says about not believing JESUS came in the flesh. (Which is a common argument by Trinitarians who don't understand its referring to proto Docetism).

The claim that it is core doctrine is subjective. I find it not even worth the effort of debate. I was saved without it.