Academic Inerrancy, Practical Errancy: Does Inerrancy Matter in Practice?

[TB2]

FWIW, there are several things that happen with any error. You say it doesn't change the gospel; I'm not sure that is so, because any error changes everything.

Some say that a person's sin is between that person and God, and nobody else. But the Bible talks about the Body as a whole of many members. If one member is not in unity with God, the rest suffer in one way or another as a result. The understanding of the Gospel works the same way. Every word articulated introduces truth or falsehood. God can get the basics across, and an adulterated Gospel may still contain the essence, but not the fullness.

We certainly need to do everything we can to preserve the integrity and transmission of sacred Scripture, if that's what you mean. Agreed.

 

[makesends]

It still means God-inspired, yes?

My point being, that Scripture itself testifies to its inspiration. We need to believe that, or it is just literature, only inspirational, take it or leave it, not authoritative.

 

[makesends]

I know, but my point was that inerrant autographs was not what made Scripture authoritative. The criteria used in the canonical process helped establish the authority based on numerous criteria. For example, certain NT books were accepted as authoritative if written or associated with the original apostles.

Sounds like you are saying that the church established the authority.

But criteria for the canonicity is not what gives it authority. They are closely related, no doubt, but the decision of the church does not establish authority to the Bible. It establishes its own.

 

[TB2]

Sounds like you are saying that the church established the authority.

But criteria for the canonicity is not what gives it authority. They are closely related, no doubt, but the decision of the church does not establish authority to the Bible. It establishes its own.

The church and Jewish rabbis still decided what to recognize as authoritative Scripture and what to reject

 

[makesends]

The church and Jewish rabbis still decided what to recognize as authoritative Scripture and what to reject

I'm not saying otherwise. But the Church and Jewish rabbis are not the source of Scripture's authority.

 

[TB2]

I'm not saying otherwise. But the Church and Jewish rabbis are not the source of Scripture's authority.

And I hear what you're saying. I would probably just phrase it a little differently. Also, the standard proof texts don't work. The Bible doesn't actually expressly teach sola Scriptura of the Bible and sufficiency of the Bible. At best it teaches inspiration of the Old Testament, sufficiency of the Old Testament, sola Scriptura of the Old Testament. I'm not saying I believe Scripture is limited to the Old Testament, just that the standard proof texts like 2 Timothy 3.16-17 refer to the Old Testament. There's the verse about 'the worker due his wage,' but that's a reference to oral tradition of Jesus's teaching. Likely didn't have the written Gospels yet. And then there's the verse in 2 Peter putting Paul's writings on par with Scripture but doesn't specify which. And the fact it's 2 Peter is problematic because the canonicity of 2 Peter, itself, has been heavily disputed and considered late first century to early second century date. The problem is Scripture doesn't come with an inspired Table of Contents to tell us what qualifies as Scripture. So even today this debated among believers. Most of the standard proof texts refer to the Old Testament (and even those texts don't specify; the Old Testament text tradition was not yet fixed during the time of Christ. Different variant manuscripts existed as well as different translations that don't always agree. Two thirds of OT citations in NT are the Greek OT Septuagint LXX and the rest the Hebrew OT and the wording is not always the same between the two (even when back translated).

So for the NT, we have to look at things external to the Bible like canonization, because the Bible doesn't expressly refer to the NT (it couldn't, of course; the completed NT didn't yet exist)

 

[Eleanor]

Bible translations require translators to make assumptions and decisions about what a given passage means. Bible translations are *interpretations*.

Nothing more than a thinly-veiled justification for one's own contra-Biblical doctrine.

You'll have to peddle that unblief somewhere else.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, that's what I'm seeing too.

You're seeing people with Bibles that present salvation by works?

No one has an inerrant copy of the Bible, but that doesn't change the gospel. No one has a perfect Bible copy but those imperfect copies don't affect the central, foundational gospel message

 

[Eleanor]

It still means God-inspired, yes?

It means what it says--theopnuestos; i.e., God-breathed.

 

[TB2]

It means what it says--theopnuestos; i.e., God-breathed.

Agreed

 

[TB2]

Nothing more than a thinly-veiled justification for one's own contra-Biblical doctrine.

You'll have to peddle that unblief somewhere else.

WTHeck are you talking about? You obviously misunderstood completely my point (and you're too fond of the word "peddle")

 

[TB2]

You're seeing people with Bibles that present salvation by works?

Again WTHeck are you talking about? Who said anything about "salvation by works"?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

1. The Doctrine of Inerrancy states that only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.

Yup - that's the "Back off" position taken by Churches who USED TO CLAIM "Biblical perfection", but have modified their "Official statements" to "Original Autographs", which, since there aren't any, prevents anybody from calling them "inaccurate". Essentially a "Damage control" maneuver.

 

[Eleanor]

WTHeck are you talking about? You obviously misunderstood completely my point

Reducing translations of the Bible simply to interpretations of the Bible.

(and you're too fond of the word "peddle")

As those who do it are too fond of the practice.

 

[Eleanor]

Again WTHeck are you talking about? Who said anything about "salvation by works"?

Addressing your post in response to my post #13 regarding salvation by works.

 

[TB2]

Reducing translations of the Bible simply to interpretations of the Bible.

As those who do it are too fond of the practice.

Good thing that doesn't apply to me

 

[TB2]

Addressing your post in response to my post #13 regarding salvation by works.

I was agreeing with your point in post #13

 

[TB2]

Reducing translations of the Bible simply to interpretations of the Bible.

I wouldn't say "simply," but highly complex the entire process of translation and greatly affected by a committee's translation philosophy and where they fall on the formal equivalence---dynamic equivalence scale.

Here's how William Mounce explains it. I'll post a number of screenshots from his book

"Languages are not codes; a word in one language has no exact equivalent in another language. "

"It is impossible to bring all the nuances of any Greek or Hebrew word into English."

"You can't simply translate word for word."

"Just remember that all translation involves interpretation. I sometimes encounter people who think their translation is not interpretive. That's impossible."

"If you want to read the Bible in English there is no such thing as a literal translation, nor is one even possible."

"It is impossible to translate even simple [phrases] literally."

"Let me again stress that all translations are interpretive. Every single translation has to look at what the Greek words say, interpret what those words mean in context, and then try to convey the same meaning in English."

 

[Eleanor]

I wouldn't say "simply," but highly complex the entire process of translation and greatly affected by a committee's translation philosophy and where they fall on the formal equivalence---dynamic equivalence scale.

Here's how William Mounce explains it. I'll post a number of screenshots from his book

Thanks for all the work.

"Let me again stress that all translations are interpretive. Every single translation has to look at what the Greek words say, interpret what those words mean in context, and then try to convey the same meaning in English."

None of which is substantive.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is a much more direct treatment of this topic at my thread 'Three Rational Defenses of Christian Faith' at Apologetics which people are viewing but not asking about. It is a totally unique but obvious approach. And there are two others!