Defending maximalist position

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 11:04 pm No, no. For me yjis is about Bible reliability as to actual events and minor errors like one or two angels (easily excused) against errors that really call Bible credibility into question (The nativities, no Transfiguration in John and – yes – the resurrections make the mid -biggies (two donkeys, the announcement in the Nazareth synagogue, the death of Judas) look like fabrications even though excuses can be made. This cumulative debunk of the Bible bringing debatable stuff like the missing parables, arrangement of sermon material and the one -offs, omissions and misplaced events into consideration. Doctrine is irrelevant. Really. If the Bible loses credibility, doctrine goes with it.

The way I see it, what you are attacking is the absolute maximalist (5) position (Everything in the Bible actually occurred. Every fact and detail claimed in the Bible is true. All narratives should be taken literally). Of course, there are people who hold to this view and I would classify them as inerrantists. And I would agree that your points would refute the absolute maximalist (5) position. For inerrantists, everything in the Bible must be true because this is their doctrinal position. And if anything is shown to be false, it would attack their doctrine.

However, I hold to the maximalist (4) position (Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect). And finding non-doctrinal “errors” would not refute this position. So any of these “problems” would not have any impact on my position – How did Sennacherib’s army die? How many angels were at Jesus’s tomb? Why is there no transfiguration story in gospel of John? Long ending of mark. Story of woman caught in adultery.

My doctrinal position would be similar to the inerrantists, except for holding to the doctrine of inerrancy. And the fundamental doctrinal points would be the crucifixion, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.