« The Religous Left | Main | Wash for Life »

September 29, 2006

Comments

As usual, great job on keeping up with current apologetics issues at STR! Also, check out this review from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:
http://www.reformation21.org/Past_Issues/May_2006/Shelf_Life/Shelf_Life/181/vobId__2930/pm__434/

only one error is enough for me to doubt the whole kit and kaboodle.

why would god let his divine message be corrupted?

> why would god let his divine message be corrupted?

Maybe it doesn't matter. As Greg has said in the past, you don't need biblical inerrancy to show the supremacy of Christ. You only need to establish the salient details of His life and resurrection. Did He exist? Did He claim to be God? Did He back up His claim with miracles and the resurrection? Was His coming predicted? If the major facts around these questions are well established, the minor details don't strictly matter.

As Greg points out, there was no New Testament for the earliest Christians, no Scriptures at all for the Gentile ones. Belief in the resurrection was good enough for them.

That said, a strong case can be made for biblical inerrancy. There are far fewer inconsistencies and difficulties today with Biblical manuscripts than in the past. Continued scholarship works out the kinks. As alluded to in Melinda's post, most errors are grammatical or spelling in nature. Very few affect the meaning of the passage, and arguably none affect a major Christian doctrine.

For examples of the interesting kinds of errors in the manuscripts, pick up a copy of "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" and read chapter two on Bible translations.

Well i wasnt there for all that miracle stuff. All i can do is read about it. And if what i'm reading is supposedly from God and yet, has errors, then what am i to conclude?

Tony-
You weren't there for most of what you know. In what sense then, on your view, can you say you know much of anything?

The question is not just how accurately the manuscripts have been passed on from the point at which they were first written down to now, but how accurate the first manuscripts were in the first place. Even the staunchest of Christians agree that years, even decades, went by between Jesus's life and the time that the first gospels were written.

Did you ever see that list of quotes that was going around at the time of the 2000 election, of stupid things Bush had said in the past? Except maybe you did get that list but it was described as a list of stupid things that *Gore* had said in the past. Both versions appear to exist. My husband, who usually knows such things, tells me that most of the quotes actually came originally from Dan Quayle. If those quotes could be misattributed within a year or two of being made, how reliable are quotes written down decades after the fact?

Hi Sarah

Could you accurately restate some of the important lessons your father or mother taught you as a child?

How about if you were used to memorizing things and periodically restated them?

And how about if you had other family members who would correct or clarify them?

This is more like what the early disciples were doing with Jesus's teachings.

Keep in mind, the disciples are also remembering an event, that is, the resurrection, without which his teachings are not very important.

take it easy,

Todd

Well put, Todd. I admire your brevity. It would have taken me a much longer post to make the same point :)

The comments to this entry are closed.