Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[John V]

Anyhoo, my argument deals with where you get this idea of inerrancy in the first place. Take Paul, for example. Why is it assumed that when he wrote letters to various congregations that he didn't make one single mistake? Paul certainly never referred to his own letters as inerrant. In Timothy, "scripture" is likely meant to refer to the Jewish law alone, not books in the NT yet to be written. 

Peter says regarding Paul's letters:

2 Peter 3
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter notes that Paul's letters are Scripture. Combined with the Timothy passage, you get inerrancy for Paul at least.

I've heard that it is Paul's status as an apostle which makes his writings inerrant. If this is true, where do you get the notion that apostles are inerrant?

I don't subscribe to the notion that apostles were inerrant 24/7. Inerrancy only refers to Scripture, as you should see from the Timothy passage.

Guidance from the Spirit doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing.

---

I think that it has been definitively settled by scholars that the author of Luke's Gospel erred.

OK. I see two sources that differ - Luke and Josephus - and no reason why I must accept Josephus over Luke. They could even both be right but incomplete. I really can't discuss it with you though when you don't read up on it, and just say you trust modern scholars who hold that view.

[Jehanne]

I do trust modern scholars:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...s_of_Syria

[vulcanlogician]

Peter notes that Paul's letters are Scripture. Combined with the Timothy passage, you get inerrancy for Paul at least.

You read the Bible with legal precision, but it wasn't written that way. When Paul wrote his epistles, his primary intent was to communicate with his various parishes concerning practical as well as spiritual matters. If he had known that his letters would some day be considered the "Word of God," he might have been more careful about what he said.

I don't subscribe to the notion that apostles were inerrant 24/7. Inerrancy only refers to Scripture, as you should see from the Timothy passage.
Guidance from the Spirit doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing.

True. But even if you carefully read the gospels and accept that Peter was the rock or foundation of the church, that still doesn't get you to inerrancy to begin with. "Peter is the rock" doesn't inherently mean that "everything Peter writes is inerrant." That is a stretch... but it seems as though this sketchy conclusion begins the journey to accepting your doctrine.

Vague interpolations get you to accept the doctrine of inerrancy-- then, once you accept the doctrine, the selfsame nebulous verses that you used to arrive at inerrancy become themselves inerrant. The whole thing is dizzyingly circular. Without conceding any of your own beliefs, you can at least see where I'm coming from, right?

I really can't discuss it with you though when you don't read up on it, and just say you trust modern scholars who hold that view.

I see nothing wrong with deferring to the judgment of those who have made it their life's work to analyze a text.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Peter notes that Paul's letters are Scripture. Combined with the Timothy passage, you get inerrancy for Paul at least.

You read the Bible with legal precision, but it wasn't written that way. When Paul wrote his epistles, his primary intent was to communicate with his various parishes concerning practical as well as spiritual matters. If he had known that his letters would some day be considered the "Word of God," he might have been more careful about what he said.

I don't subscribe to the notion that apostles were inerrant 24/7. Inerrancy only refers to Scripture, as you should see from the Timothy passage.
Guidance from the Spirit doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing.

True. But even if you carefully read the gospels and accept that Peter was the rock or foundation of the church, that still doesn't get you to inerrancy to begin with. "Peter is the rock" doesn't inherently mean that "everything Peter writes is inerrant." That is a stretch... but it seems as though this sketchy conclusion begins the journey to accepting your doctrine.

Vague interpolations get you to accept the doctrine of inerrancy-- then, once you accept the doctrine, the selfsame nebulous verses that you used to arrive at inerrancy become themselves inerrant. The whole thing is dizzyingly circular. Without conceding any of your own beliefs, you can at least see where I'm coming from, right?

I really can't discuss it with you though when you don't read up on it, and just say you trust modern scholars who hold that view.

I see nothing wrong with deferring to the judgment of those who have made it their life's work to analyze a text.

I wonder how much Paul spent on postage?  And how did Peter get duplicate copies of Paul's international letters?

[vorlon13]

I think that it has been definitively settled by scholars that the author of Luke's Gospel erred.

-however-

It is what God wants His followers to BELIEVE that's the money shot, if you will. He wants them to believe in His Bible TRUTH. That transcends mere physical reality by half a furlong, if not a light year.


Hate to be saving the religiousites nibblets for them, but it's all about the big picture here, and mere physical reality 'truth' is nothing compared to the power of His Word.

I'd be quite happy with this attitude, as it's the only way they can present their FAITH to outsiders, who by necessity, are not believers, yet:

God said it,

The Bible records it,

I believe it.




If I'm not mistaken, that's why they're called 'believers'.

[vorlon13]

IOWs, Biblical Inerrancy can be nevertheless be "LITERALLY" true, 100%. Since Scripture records vastly different versions of it's denouement, the crucifixion, a believer merely has to believe Jesus dying words, for instance, are "it is done" and "why has thou forsaken me?,and "It is finished" all at once. That's why God requires use of his creations innate ability to BELIEVE.

Of course, to someone outside the faith, Jesus simultaneously saying 3 or 4 completely different things simultaneously upon his expiration is going to come across as whacked, BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO !!

Believer's who have a problem with it AREN'T believers.


Sheesh, this is all Sunday School 101 stuff.


Get a grip everyone, (both sides, you're ALL wrong!!)

[Jehanne]

I think that it has been definitively settled by scholars that the author of Luke's Gospel erred.

-however-

It is what God wants His followers to BELIEVE that's the money shot, if you will. He wants them to believe in His Bible TRUTH. That transcends mere physical reality by half a furlong, if not a light year.


Hate to be saving the religiousites nibblets for them, but it's all about the big picture here, and mere physical reality 'truth' is nothing compared to the power of His Word.

I'd be quite happy with this attitude, as it's the only way they can present their FAITH to outsiders, who by necessity, are not believers, yet:

God said it,

The Bible records it,

I believe it.




If I'm not mistaken, that's why they're called 'believers'.

I can't be a geocentrist, one reason that the 1st century Roman & Greek intelligentsia were all unconvinced by the claims of the early Christians to the point of ignoring them almost entirely.

[vulcanlogician]

And how did Peter get duplicate copies of Paul's international letters?

I doubt that alpha will agree with their assessment, but most scholars consider 1 & 2 Peter to be spurious. "Peter" the author most likely lived much later when Paul's epistles were heavily circulated amongst believers.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And here I am, a nonbeliever, with no method of discerning who is correct, if anyone. There is nothing in the Bible itself to clarify things. All I have to go on is, admittedly fallible humans, telling me contradictory things.

Even if you happen know the ultimate designation as to which passages are poetry, songs, dreams, visions, parables, etc, how am I supposed to know?

I use my brain. Part of being an adult is about using your best judgment to figure out who to trust and what to believe. YMMV

[Wyrd of Gawd]

And how did Peter get duplicate copies of Paul's international letters?

I doubt that alpha will agree with their assessment, but most scholars consider 1 & 2 Peter to be spurious. "Peter" the author most likely lived much later when Paul's epistles were heavily circulated amongst believers.

That's a theory but it isn't very credible considering all of the turmoil going on in the region at that time.  

So there's this guy Paul who's racking up frequent boat and donkey miles flittering around the towns in Asia Minor and the Western Med.  Every once in a while he would zip off a long scroll to his buddies in some far off town giving them a prop talk on his magic man.  In the meantime rebellions and wars are breaking out all over the place but Paul's letters survive all of the havoc and end up in a central library.  That's really turning water into wine.  

Sure, there was a very real Christian religious movement at that time but the idea that it was written down in detail is almost certainly false.  Like all of the other religions it was most certainly based on oral stories that varied among the regions. 

It was around 690 A.D. before all of the stories were actually written and compiled into an unified book, the first Bible and it was written in Latin by a committee based in England.