polonius wrote: I believe in a literal six days of creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal worldwide flood, a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, reject macroevolution, and believe the earth is at the center of the universe. So did the Catholic church until Galileo came along and the whole story fell apart. …
JehovahsWitness wrote:So what where are the biblical “errors” ? I might get into those later, but it’s not the intention of this thread to discuss if the Bible has errors or not. My main point is arguing it is not necessary to believe the Bible is inerrant. So, continuing on with my arguments… There are several …
Read more “Denominations that do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy”
I believe we have also been too influenced by the Greek way of thinking and need to balance it with the Hebrew way of thought. Inerrancy is one manifestation of the Greek thinking and has been influenced by Plato’s theory of forms. The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, …
JehovahsWitness wrote:I don’t mind stating for the record that I don’t believe it has any errors (historical, scientific) or any contradictions but we are not here to discuss that … Personally, I do believe the autographs have “errors” in them. But even if it does have “errors”, it is meaningless to claim the Bible is errant. …
I think one reason there’s such a battle over the view of inerrancy is people think there’s only two positions. But it’s a false dilemma. Just because someone denies Biblical inerrancy does not mean he’s necessarily claiming the autographs has errors. It is not either one accepts Biblical inerrancy or Biblical errancy. One does not …
Elijah John wrote:But grant that for the sake of argument. Would the occasional flaw nullify the Bible’s authority? Why should, or why would that be so? Yes, this is what this thread is about. Seems like people still want to discuss if the Bible has errors in it. I think it’s safe to acknowledge that any …
Read more “Would the occasional flaw nullify the Bible’s authority?”
Given that the majority consensus view on inerrancy only applies to the autographs and does not apply to any translations, and given that we do not have any autographs and no originals exist, and given that we only use modern translations, and given that when we use the term Bible, it is in reference to …
Yes, most of the groups that I found add the qualification that inerrancy only applies to the autographs (original). Probably if pressed, the Southern Baptists and Lutheran Church Missouri Synod would limit it to the autographs, but they are not explicit in this. Following applies inerrancy only to the autographs: Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy …
Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it? Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy. As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is …
POI wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 6:32 pm I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that’s really it. Bottom line, you only appeal to the argument from authority in this debate. You have not provided anything other than …