Inerrancy – Bellingham Statement 2

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Deacon, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    Continuing with Michael Heiser’s discussion on Inerrancy on his site, The Naked Bible, here is the next portion:

    Bellingham Statement 2
    Agree/disagree?

    This statement of Michael Heiser’s is primarily crafted to deal with difficulties in the Hebrew Scriptures.
    IMO, as stated it could provide the strongest case for the primacy of a Majority NT text.

    Thread on Bellingham Statement 1 [LINK]

    Rob
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I have no problem with it. It IS referring to Hebrew (the psalms were editted and redacted many times prior to the form and order in which we find them in the Hebrew Tanakh today.

    For the NT, I would hesitate to go very far. Shortly after the books were written they were already being corrupted. Even by Nicea (350) there were some odd copies that in some places were not even close to the older texts we have today.

    It gives great support to the primacy of the oldest documents and not the copies of copies of copies of copies that we have piles of from the Eastern Orthodox monasteries of the crusades.
     
  3. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    A common aspect of a statement of faith is a sentence that says something along these lines:

    "We believe that Scripture was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts."

    Does Heiser second statement square with this?

    Rob
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Good question.

    Today the paper heralded the first Hebrew script writing from 1100 BC. Now Moses wrote Torah in 1400, so we know Hebrew writing existed.

    But when we think of the "original manuscripts" most give a little slack to those compiling, redacting, etc. The Psalms run the gammut from Moses to post-exilic (at least 1000 years) but were not put into the present 150 psalm form until about 400 BC. THAT I think is what Mike is looking at as the "formal writing/compiling" of what we know as the Book of Psalms.

    In the NT it was almost instantaneous. By 100 AD there was great unity (though no total agreement) already on the Greek text of almost every NT book. Mike's definition would NOT then give carte blanche to the Constantine additions and their Byz-family corruptions of the ancient text, but hey, that's another debate.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,971
    Likes Received:
    128
    "Constantine additions and their Byz-family corruptions" are handled by the science of textual criticism.

    Changes in the NT, whether they be additions or subtractions, don’t necessarily need to be called corruptions.

    Most of these changes are overlooked or considered acceptable differences by the general populous Christians.
    They make little to no difference in the application of the text.

    Two spots where this statement touches on the NT are:
    Both of these are printed in our bibles, commonly accepted as Scripture but were probably not in the originally written text.

    Rob
     
    #5 Deacon, Nov 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...