Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Can we honestly defend biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

OzSpen

C F Martin D28 acoustic guitar
Member
I receive regular emailers from leading evangelical apologist, Dr William Lane Craig of Reasonable Faith. I have just read his article, "Is Biblical Inerrancy Defensible?"

He supports the teaching that

* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by our access to it; in any case we do have the text of the autographs, even if we don’t have the autographs themselves.​
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by copyists’ errors; in any case the manuscript variants are trivial, so that no Christian doctrine hangs on them.​
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by our uncertainty about ancient culture; in any case we know much, more of first century culture than almost any previous succeeding generation, and no Christian doctrine hangs on any uncertainty.​
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by our uncertainty about the meaning of various words; in any case those words that remain uncertain in their meanings are more than counterbalanced by the clear teaching of Scripture.​
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by translations into modern languages; indeed, a plurality of translations is a great benefit in understanding the nuances of the original text.​
* the truthfulness of the original text is unaffected by the absence of inspired interpretations; fortunately, the major Christian confessions agree on most of the doctrinal essentials.​

Why don't you read his defense of this position and decide if this is supported by biblical teaching?

Oz
 
Biblical inerrancy is supported by the Bible. I agree with the points you gave that Craig made. But I did not read the link you gave.

It appears to me that all attacks against Biblical inerrancy are rooted in disbelief of what the Bible says. The man of the world attacks inerrancy because he doesn't believe in God anyway, thus there can be no revealed written Word of God.

Many Christians attack inerrancy because they don't believe some of the things in the Bible. Sometimes it is due to the supernatural element in the Bible. Sometimes it is due to statements made of God that they just can't believe are true. And sometimes it is due to having no answer to the many supposed contradictions in the Bible.

These attacks upon the inerrancy of Scripture leave many believers holding their Bible and wondering if this is really the Word of God. And that is the goal of the one who is behind it.

(Gen. 3:1) "Yea, hath God said"

The only correct response to that is "It is written". (Matt. 4:4), (4:7), (4:10)

Quantrill
 
Biblical inerrancy is supported by the Bible. I agree with the points you gave that Craig made. But I did not read the link you gave.

It appears to me that all attacks against Biblical inerrancy are rooted in disbelief of what the Bible says. The man of the world attacks inerrancy because he doesn't believe in God anyway, thus there can be no revealed written Word of God.

Many Christians attack inerrancy because they don't believe some of the things in the Bible. Sometimes it is due to the supernatural element in the Bible. Sometimes it is due to statements made of God that they just can't believe are true. And sometimes it is due to having no answer to the many supposed contradictions in the Bible.

These attacks upon the inerrancy of Scripture leave many believers holding their Bible and wondering if this is really the Word of God. And that is the goal of the one who is behind it.

(Gen. 3:1) "Yea, hath God said"

The only correct response to that is "It is written". (Matt. 4:4), (4:7), (4:10)

Quantrill

Qantrill,

Well stated! I consider there are a few dimensions to this issue:
  • Many evangelical Christians are biblically illiterate regarding this teaching.
  • This means they don't understand the content of the doctrine of inerrancy.
  • The theological liberals have so undermined faith in the truthfulness of God's Word that we have doubting evangelicals in the camp of biblical infallibility.
  • You might be interested in an article I had published this week: Anglicans, Christmas, and the birth of God? I've cited an associated minister at the Parramatta evangelical Anglican church, David Ould, who claims one of the main problems is with integrity of Anglican ministers. He is minister in the large evangelical Sydney diocese of the Anglican church.
C S Lewis came up with a way to fix the problem back in the late 1940s:

It is your duty to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. . . . We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them ('Christian Apologetics', 1945:1).​

Oz
 
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How do we know this is true, by hearing and allowing the Holy Spirit teach us all truths.
 
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

How do we know this is true, by hearing and allowing the Holy Spirit teach us all truths.

How will I know if the Holy Spirit is teaching you truth or error? What criteria can you give me to ascertain if your doctrine is of the truth?
 
How will I know if the Holy Spirit is teaching you truth or error? What criteria can you give me to ascertain if your doctrine is of the truth?
The Holy Spirit will always speak truth, but there are other spirits that like to seduce us into believing a distorted gospel and this is why we need to Spiritually discern what is being taught to us as we test the spirts to know truth from error.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1 John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1 John 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
 
Qantrill,

Well stated! I consider there are a few dimensions to this issue:
  • Many evangelical Christians are biblically illiterate regarding this teaching.
  • This means they don't understand the content of the doctrine of inerrancy.
  • The theological liberals have so undermined faith in the truthfulness of God's Word that we have doubting evangelicals in the camp of biblical infallibility.
  • You might be interested in an article I had published this week: Anglicans, Christmas, and the birth of God? I've cited an associated minister at the Parramatta evangelical Anglican church, David Ould, who claims one of the main problems is with integrity of Anglican ministers. He is minister in the large evangelical Sydney diocese of the Anglican church.
C S Lewis came up with a way to fix the problem back in the late 1940s:

It is your duty to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. . . . We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them ('Christian Apologetics', 1945:1).​

Oz

Yes, I will try and read your article.

It has been my experience that those who reject the inerrancy of Scripture, don't really believe the Bible is the Word of God. Simple as that. They will word it in a way that sounds acceptable but once you start talking to them, you find they don't believe it at all.

For example, the Bible becomes the Word of God, or the Bible contains the Word of God. All sound good, except they are not saying the Bible is the Word of God.

Quantrill
 
Going back to the subject of the post: can we honestly defend biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts...

We don't have the original manuscripts. The closest that we have are copies of the "original" manuscripts and some of these differ from each other.

Additionally, we live in a very, very different world than when the earliest manuscripts were written. Most importantly, our language and thought processes are totally unlike those of the original authors, so the works must be translated into our modern language and thought processes. That is the critical role of Bible translators.

The answer to your question is that we can come close to the words and meanings of the earliest manuscripts, remembering that they are copies of the "originals", but we cannot defend the biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts, since we don't have them.
 
It has been my experience that those who reject the inerrancy of Scripture, don't really believe the Bible is the Word of God. Simple as that. They will word it in a way that sounds acceptable but once you start talking to them, you find they don't believe it at all.

For example, the Bible becomes the Word of God, or the Bible contains the Word of God. All sound good, except they are not saying the Bible is the Word of God.
i was told by some liberal christians that the bible was written by man about his experience with God - making it to them the word of man
 
i was told by some liberal christians that the bible was written by man about his experience with God - making it to them the word of man

Your categorization of some Christians (capitalized!) as liberal indicates that you don't agree with them because of some undefined politics. I'm already doubting your objectivity!

BTW, who do you think actually wrote the books of the Bible? Sheep? Of course the Bible was written by men. Your conclusion that "liberal "christians" think that the Bible is therefore "the word of men" (implying that it isn't the Word of God) is unfounded and prejudicial.
 
Your categorization of some Christians (capitalized!) as liberal indicates that you don't agree with them because of some undefined politics. I'm already doubting your objectivity!

BTW, who do you think actually wrote the books of the Bible? Sheep? Of course the Bible was written by men. Your conclusion that "liberal "christians" think that the Bible is therefore "the word of men" (implying that it isn't the Word of God) is unfounded and prejudicial.
i was in a liberal christian forum asking them about their beliefs and how they differed from evangelical christians - they told me they believe the bible was written by man about his experience with God - i asked evangelical christians what they believed and they said the bible was written by God and man took dictation from God

just telling what i was told
 
i was in a liberal christian forum asking them about their beliefs and how they differed from evangelical christians - they told me they believe the bible was written by man about his experience with God - i asked evangelical christians what they believed and they said the bible was written by God and man took dictation from God

just telling what i was told

Where is this "liberal christian (not capitalized by you) forum that you refer to? How are liberal Christians different from evangelical Christians?

What about the concept that men wrote the Bible as they were guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit?
 
Where is this "liberal christian (not capitalized by you) forum that you refer to? How are liberal Christians different from evangelical Christians?

What about the concept that men wrote the Bible as they were guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit?
you already said you don't believe me so do your own research - believe what you want - i'm having a friendly discussion giving my input - what are you doing?
 
you already said you don't believe me so do your own research - believe what you want - i'm having a friendly discussion giving my input - what are you doing?

I am responding to your friendly discussion. Aren't I entitled to my friendly input in response?

Again, where is this "liberal christian (not capitalized by you) forum that you refer to? How are liberal Christians different from evangelical Christians?

What about the concept that men wrote the Bible as they were guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit?
 
I am responding to your friendly discussion. Aren't I entitled to my friendly input in response?

Again, where is this "liberal christian (not capitalized by you) forum that you refer to? How are liberal Christians different from evangelical Christians?

What about the concept that men wrote the Bible as they were guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit?
as i said do your own research since you don't believe me
 
Going back to the subject of the post: can we honestly defend biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts...

We don't have the original manuscripts. The closest that we have are copies of the "original" manuscripts and some of these differ from each other.

Additionally, we live in a very, very different world than when the earliest manuscripts were written. Most importantly, our language and thought processes are totally unlike those of the original authors, so the works must be translated into our modern language and thought processes. That is the critical role of Bible translators.

The answer to your question is that we can come close to the words and meanings of the earliest manuscripts, remembering that they are copies of the "originals", but we cannot defend the biblical inerrancy of the original manuscripts, since we don't have them.

jaybo,

I use copies of the Australian $5 note regularly and the businesses where I spend the $ accept it as equivalent to the $5 note in the Royal Mint in Canberra. I've never seen that $5 note that is the original but I'm more than happy to accept a copy as representing the infallible $5 note.

So, we can accept inerrant original MSS, even though we only have copies that have been translated. Inerrancy has nothing to do with the world of the first century when the MSS were penned.

The inerrancy of the autographa depends on the nature of the One who gave us the Bible. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Since all Scripture is breathed out by the absolutely pure and holy God who never lies, I can be confident the Scriptures that have reached me are inerrant in the originals.

Oz
 
I am responding to your friendly discussion. Aren't I entitled to my friendly input in response?

Again, where is this "liberal christian (not capitalized by you) forum that you refer to? How are liberal Christians different from evangelical Christians?

What about the concept that men wrote the Bible as they were guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit?

jaybo,

How do liberal Christians differ from evangelical Christians? Have you read the content of the theology in their writings?

See the difference in theology between John Shelby Spong and Wayne Grudem. Compare Spong's, Why Christianity Must Change or Die with Grudem's, Bible Doctrine.

Have you read anything of the heretical, postmodern, deconstructionist teachings in John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity? Why don't you compare Crossan's works with that of evangelical ancient historian, Paul Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years?

Oz
 
Biblical inerrancy is supported by the Bible. I agree with the points you gave that Craig made. But I did not read the link you gave.

It appears to me that all attacks against Biblical inerrancy are rooted in disbelief of what the Bible says. The man of the world attacks inerrancy because he doesn't believe in God anyway, thus there can be no revealed written Word of God.

Many Christians attack inerrancy because they don't believe some of the things in the Bible. Sometimes it is due to the supernatural element in the Bible. Sometimes it is due to statements made of God that they just can't believe are true. And sometimes it is due to having no answer to the many supposed contradictions in the Bible.

These attacks upon the inerrancy of Scripture leave many believers holding their Bible and wondering if this is really the Word of God. And that is the goal of the one who is behind it.

(Gen. 3:1) "Yea, hath God said"

The only correct response to that is "It is written". (Matt. 4:4), (4:7), (4:10)

Quantrill

Qantrill,

One of the world's leading OT scholars, Dr Gleason L Archer, had lots of questions about certain passages of Scripture. Before he could affirm inerrancy, he had to check out the doubts he had about certain Scriptures. The result has been The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan 1982).

1607373990975.png

Oz
 
Back
Top