praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Concepts of Inerrancy can create problems in application to the extant Scriptures. Inerrancy is a rather new "concept" having been "crystalized" in the "Chicago Statement" among evangelicals in 1978.
Some of these "problems" arise from an incomplete or lack of understanding concerning the Biblical Canon of choice. Such is personal preference. We do not elevate "inerrancy" to limit our preferences. The English word Bible means nothing more than a "collection of writings". "Bible" comes from the word "biblion" in Greek and has over time morphed into personal preferences such as "The Bible". Which becomes a claim of authority in the collection itself. Relative to the collections themselves, I deal with manuscripts that themselves are collected historical into a cohesive mixture of fact. For example, Codex Alexandrinus.
The primary problem I have with such teachings is the intent to end the conversation of defining the Scriptures individual to the believer with such "councils as took place in Chicago in 1978.
In other words, I prefer to discuss the "veracity" of the Scriptures. There are many nonconsequential errors of fact to be found in any collection. There are also some very meaningful errors of fact found in the preferences of men in the collection. Thusly, the proper context should always begin with "Veracity"... not "inerrancy".
There is no practical application of inerrancy to be found in any extant manuscript whatsoever. Every how small or inconsequential, these are the facts. You don't have to agree with me. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Inerrancy is a "loaded word".
Some of these "problems" arise from an incomplete or lack of understanding concerning the Biblical Canon of choice. Such is personal preference. We do not elevate "inerrancy" to limit our preferences. The English word Bible means nothing more than a "collection of writings". "Bible" comes from the word "biblion" in Greek and has over time morphed into personal preferences such as "The Bible". Which becomes a claim of authority in the collection itself. Relative to the collections themselves, I deal with manuscripts that themselves are collected historical into a cohesive mixture of fact. For example, Codex Alexandrinus.
The primary problem I have with such teachings is the intent to end the conversation of defining the Scriptures individual to the believer with such "councils as took place in Chicago in 1978.
In other words, I prefer to discuss the "veracity" of the Scriptures. There are many nonconsequential errors of fact to be found in any collection. There are also some very meaningful errors of fact found in the preferences of men in the collection. Thusly, the proper context should always begin with "Veracity"... not "inerrancy".
There is no practical application of inerrancy to be found in any extant manuscript whatsoever. Every how small or inconsequential, these are the facts. You don't have to agree with me. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Inerrancy is a "loaded word".
