Inerrant in the original autographs

"To the extent that they represent the original MSS" sounds almost like a disclaimer. I agree with the statement up to this point. If we argue that God's word is inerrant, and that He has preserved it, then we have to also assume that the preservation extends to the translation of it. That is not to say all translations faithfully preserve it, but the ones that do (at least in English) are known.

Obviously we know that something is lost in the translation, and maybe that is what is in view in this statement. I would just like to see the statement more clearly state this is that is what is in view, because one could easily take the last phrase as a license to doubt the translated scriptures.

Dave

 

In no way have I rejected the inerrancy of Scripture. As a matter of fact, I fully embrace it as a matter of faith alone. There is no evidence that every word of copies and translation of scripture comes directly from the originals since we do not have an original to compare it with. Our evidence is our faith that God has given to us. Although, you can prove historically that historical event did, in fact, take place. What you cannot prove outside of faith, is that the message of Scripture, and events and words of the Scripture which are not mentioned in history or evidenced in archeology. For example, when the Gospels speak of the 40 days in the wilderness, when Jesus was isolated from every one and tempted by Satan, the only evidence we have for that is faith. When Paul discusses God's sovereign choice and election, this is not necessarily a historical event. Since we do not have an original of Scripture to compare it too, our evidence is faith that it is preserved and accurate, and actually what God had for us.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I agree with you that there is not 100%, remove all doubt, historical proof. However, faith coupled with the fact of the large amount of agreement among the manuscripts that are available, I think is evidence to support the idea.

Absolutely innerancy in the original autographs is 100% a matter of faith. I will even grant that preservation is largely a matter of faith, but there is a substantial body of documentary evidence that would lead one to logically conclude that the content has been transmitted down through the years.

 

That form of expressing it could be misunderstood. It sounds as though it is an assumption with nothing to back it up.

Belief in the Bible's reliability is based on many things that are subject to impartial examination.

Once we see that the Bible is a reliable expression of God's revelation, then we study it and find that it teaches the doctrine of inerrancy, and we embrace that doctrine because it is taught in the reliable book we call the Bible.

It is not a matter of debate, as some denominational differences are, but simply what the Bible says everywhere. Denying the doctrine implies that the book which teaches it is unreliable. That's why the doctrine is non-negotiable.

 

Have you ever seen an original autograph? If not, how do you know it is inerrant, and how do you know it is preserved perfectly and accurately in the copies and translation? It is because you believe what the Bible says about itself by faith alone. There is no objective, scientific evidence to prove it. Its proof is faith alone.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"No objective, scientific proof" suits me! Science changes so often, how could we possibly trust it for proof about Scripture's inerrancy?

I believe that there is an additional proof, the witness of the Holy Spirit within our hearts that this is the Word of God. In other words. This is the very same process by which the canon was determined.

 

IveyLeaguer, I read what you posted at the bottom of p. 6. I only read it through once but I agree with it. It reminds me of what Dr. Norman Geisler says about inerrancy of the scripture. Surely if the the original words of the Bible are God-breathed, then they must be inerrant because God is without error.

Who wrote what you posted?

 

No, it ends with a step of faith, but faith (in a religious sense) is not the only ingredient. I reason from a reliable Bible to an inerrant Bible.

Reliability is established by many methods, most of which are shared by both critical and conservative scholars.

Once reliability is established, then the doctrines of revelation and inspiration are studied and we find that the Bible teaches the doctrine of inerrancy.

We cannot continue to believe in reliability if we deny this plain teaching of inerrancy. To question inerrancy, I would have to reverse the findings that originally led me to accept the Bible as reliable. So I am forced into the doctrine, or else I have to concoct some weird scheme to explain how a reliable Bible can teach gross error on nearly every page (for, as Custer demonstrated, inspiration does demand inerrancy). There's some element of faith in nearly every mental assent, but usually not "faith alone."

Just because I've never seen your brain does not mean that I accept its existence by faith alone. I have other reasons as well.

 

Well, I did. I didn't refer to anything.

:Fish:

 

Why?

Where did you get the idea that the Bible teaches "gross error on nearly every page"? I don't know any people who have reservations about the theory of inerrancy that believe anything close to what you claim here.

 

Denial of the doctrine of inerrancy is a denial of what the Bible teaches on nearly every page, namely, the doctrine of inerrancy.

If we are going to consider the Bible to be a reliable guide to what we believe, then we have to believe what it teaches about itself. If we refuse to believe that, then we occupy an incoherent, indefensible position when we claim that the Bible is reliable.