Igzy
Quote:
|
Of course, the whole thing hinges on what you mean by "inerrant." Which is why I don't like discussions where terms are not defined and it just becomes a word game.
|
What's your definition?
Quote:
|
The way I look at it is simple. I believe in Jesus. The most reliable record of Jesus shows him with the unmistakable attitude that the entire OT was the Word of God. He quoted it profusely and plainly stated that it was authoritative. His ministry and Paul's were a period of major changes for God's arrangement with mankind. Don't you think if they had problems with parts of the OT they would have let us know during that time? But they didn't.
|
They did not have modern science. Their knowledge base was relatively limited compared to ours. Also, it depends on what you mean by "they". There were different schools of thought back then not totally unlike there are today. You are imagining total agreement whereas history shows that was not the case.
Quote:
|
It makes sense to validate ancient texts and modern translations. However, sometimes I think people seek to find errors in the Bible to introduce doubt about it and undermine its authority, in order to free themselves from some of its requirements, which may not even be related to the text they are questioning. That's a dangerous path to take.
|
You're right, sometimes people do. But let's not pretend that there are not real problems with the text that exist independent of the motivation of inerrancy opposers.
Quote:
|
Better, once you've validated the text and vetted the translation (and former has been done to a degree which should satisfy anyone), to interpret the Bible, rather than eviscerate it.
|
Can you give an example of a text for which that process has been completed and show us how it's done?
Quote:
|
I just can't imagine a plausible scenario where God would allow us to be deceived in such a way. To present us with his Son respecting the OT, and then going, "Oops, well that really wasn't the way. Sorry." Makes no sense at all.
|
So to you Jesus of Nazareth in no sense had ordinary human cognitive limitations? If that is the case, in what sense can we consider him a man by which I mean an ordinary human being? And if he is not an ordinary human being, how can he save us who are?