A fundamentalist revision of inerrancy

[Archaea]

http://www.quodlibet.net/weil-inerrancy.shtml

Interesting to say the least.

[BarbaraGordon]

I'll admit it, haven't read the article yet.

But I coincidentally found a very recent and sort-of related poll.
Tracks belief in Biblical literalism by age, education, denomination, geography.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27682

[Archaea]

That's fascinating. The statement I cited is actually quite fascinating. They make one statement which I find interesting, noting that "word for word" may or may not be possible but for "textual criticism". Through this device they claim we can discover "God's" actual words.

My option is not there.

[BlueK]

"Scripture is never in contradiction with itself, and is never in contradiction with fact. Such an accusation is a complete reversal of the character of God."

What I don't understand is why a few contradictions have anything to do with the character of God. Men are imperfect and make mistakes. Mark attributed something to Isaiah that should have been attributed to Malachi. So what. The problem is not with God or the scriptures, but rather with the way evangelicals approach scripture. Still waiting for them to show me the scripture that says God cannot reveal anything in the future.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

"Scripture is never in contradiction with itself, and is never in contradiction with fact. Such an accusation is a complete reversal of the character of God."

What I don't understand is why a few contradictions have anything to do with the character of God. Men are imperfect and make mistakes. Mark attributed something to Isaiah that should have been attributed to Malachi. So what. The problem is not with God or the scriptures, but rather with the way evangelicals approach scripture. Still waiting for them to show me the scripture that says God cannot reveal anything in the future.

I think what they believe isn't that God cannot reveal anything in the future but that He has not since he already revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. In theory he can, in practice he hasn't (right, Batgirl?).

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I think what they believe isn't that God cannot reveal anything in the future but that He has not since he already revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. In theory he can, in practice he hasn't (right, Batgirl?).

Maybe "won't" is a better word to use. Interesting that it was the heretic Marcion who first put together a canon which he considered to be complete and closed. Later the orthodox borrowed the same idea and just added more books to it. So the idea of a finite, closed canon didn't even come from orthodox Christianity.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I think what they believe isn't that God cannot reveal anything in the future but that He has not since he already revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. In theory he can, in practice he hasn't (right, Batgirl?).

I swear those two words weren't there the first time I read that post.

Well, this is a touchy subject.

My understanding is that the Bible is viewed as the perfect (in the original per-fectum sense of complete) and inspired Word of God. Therefore God will not impart any further scripture.

Revelation 22:18 is commonly cited, but this is an erroneous use of the text, IMO. There are a few other passages cited, but none is very clear on the matter.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I swear those two words weren't there the first time I read that post.

Well, this is a touchy subject.

My understanding is that the Bible is viewed as the perfect (in the original per-fectum sense of complete) and inspired Word of God. Therefore God will not impart any further scripture.

Revelation 22:18 is commonly cited, but this is an erroneous use of the text, IMO. There are a few other passages cited, but none is very clear on the matter.

I'm just saying what I heard from Craig Blomberg.

[Archaea]

You need to read the link, those that have not, as it modifies the traditional inerrancy argument.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.quodlibet.net/weil-inerrancy.shtml

Interesting to say the least.

What did you think of his argument regarding OT inerrancy? I found it much weaker than his NT argument.

I noticed the article was a little dated. I found one from this year which touches on many of the same points, but unfortunately does not address OT at all.