Inerrancy vs Veracity

[praise_yeshua]

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".

 

[JoshebB]

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.

Something being formalized or "crystallized" is not the same thing as it being new. Many core doctrines of Christianity were held either as orthodox or the majority viewpoint ling before they were formalized (written down as a measure for all to use as the standard). The concept of inerrancy was held simply as a logical necessity of divine revelation (or inspiration) in the Reformation even though the specific word "inerrancy" was not commonly used. Prior to the Reformation the RCC did not use the word "inerrant," but they did teach scripture is faithful and trustworthy. Prior to the institutionalization of the RCC the ECFs emphasized divine authorship which, logically speaking, meant flawless because the flawless God does not have flawed revelation.

Some of these "problems" arise from an incomplete or lack of understanding concerning the Biblical Canon of choice.

The Bible canon has nothing whatsoever to do with the inerrancy of scripture. Perhaps you've misunderstood the doctrine of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the revelation of God in its original form. The doctrine of inerrancy acknowledges the fact we lack the original. The Bible contains errors, God's original revelation, scripture, does not. Various translations contain various errors. Scripture does not contain errors.


So.....


Start the op over with that information in mind.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Something being formalized or "crystallized" is not the same thing as it being new.

Can be. In this case it is.

Many core doctrines of Christianity were held either as orthodox or the majority viewpoint ling before they were formalized (written down as a measure for all to use as the standard). The concept of inerrancy was held simply as a logical necessity of divine revelation (or inspiration) in the Reformation even though the specific word "inerrancy" was not commonly used. Prior to the Reformation the RCC did not use the word "inerrant," but they did teach scripture is faithful and trustworthy. Prior to the institutionalization of the RCC the ECFs emphasized divine authorship which, logically speaking, meant flawless because the flawless God does not have flawed revelation.

Sounds like veracity. Do you know what veracity means?

The Bible canon has nothing whatsoever to do with the inerrancy of scripture. Perhaps you've misunderstood the doctrine of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the revelation of God in its original form. The doctrine of inerrancy acknowledges the fact we lack the original. The Bible contains errors, God's original revelation, scripture, does not. Various translations contain various errors. Scripture does not contain errors.


So.....


Start the op over with that information in mind.

Wrong. It has many things to do with. I understand it just fine. Perhaps, you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps. Speak your mind. Stop this posturing.

I'm not starting anything over because you "think" I should.

Acknowledging we don't have the originals is very important. Such thoughts most accurate represent the doctrine of veracity. The false teachings of "inerrancy" is nothing more than a distraction. It is similar to using the word "ordure" instead of the alternatives.

No matter how you slice it..... it has no practical application. Preaching what is classified as God's revelation to humanity as being complete and without error it is nothing more than a easily provable lie. Like I said in the OP.

There is no practical application of inerrancy. It is nothing more than an attempt to end the conversation. The facts are clear. Man has long rejected God. The "Revelation" of God has suffered because of this. It is your sin and my sin that causes the problems we have today.

You know what mankind needs to hear instead.... The Truth that Christ alone is perfect and inerrant/without error.

Do this might make a difference? I know Calvinists don't often understand but surely you can recognize a good thing when you see it.

 

[Dizerner]

Concepts of Inerrancy can create problems in application to the extant Scriptures.

I actually agree with this.

My view is the Scriptures are supernatural and inspired, but I would not subscribe to a lot of people's view on inerrancy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I actually agree with this.

My view is the Scriptures are supernatural and inspired, but I would not subscribe to a lot of people's view on inerrancy.

We might could boil this down to....

Do we know now as much as previous generations have known God?

I don't believe we do. There is this concept in theology that subsequent successive generations become greater in wisdom. That revelation is gained rather than lost. While I do believe knowledge has increased, wisdom is often lost in the quest for knowledge. Not that I think we can know too much. It is the application of wisdom that tends to empower man to ignore God. Success is often our worst enemy. We forget God in our blessings.

 

[JoshebB]

Can be. In this case it is.

I disagree (for reasons I have already posted)

Sounds like veracity. Do you know what veracity means?

Don't be snotty. Of course I know what veracity means.

Wrong. It has many things to do with. I understand it just fine. Perhaps, you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps. Speak your mind. Stop this posturing.

You're being obnoxious, so thank you for your time but you're wrong and we're done.