Ernie, On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin and Lennart, > > On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:13 PM, Lennart Johansson wrote: > >> Kevin, >> >>> If I accept a priori that the text is true and contains no contradictions, >>> I will not stop at little differences between translations. >> >> What about minor contradictions, within a translation or even >> translations (and presumably within the original text) that does not >> really alter the meaning of the text? Like in Matt. 10:9-10 where >> Jesus says "Take... no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or >> sandals, or a staff..." but in Mark 6:8-9 he says "Take nothing for >> [your] journey except a staff..." We can throw in Luke 9:3 and the 3 >> passages seems to contradict. Yet, the main point being something like >> "go, and trust that God will take care of you" is still the truth in >> all 3 passages? > > I think part of the problem is that inerrancy isn't usually defined very > precisely. For example, I usually hear it defined as "the plain meaning of > the original manuscripts is without substantive error." While I'm not > entirely sure why the written word gets priority over oral tradition, I can > understand the preference. The tricky part is "original". Modern Hebrew > didn't exist until at least Ezra, and anything Moses wrote would've been in > something completely different -- perhaps even Hieroglyphics. And I'm sure > Billy would give you an earful about what can happen in 1,000 years of > transmission... > > I think part of the obsessive focus on inerrant Scripture -- as opposed to > mere "infallibility" -- comes from the Protestant desire to have something a > perfectly authoritative as the Pope (or even "science" ;-). The reality is > that even if you accept strict inerrancy, there's a lot of nuance and > subjective decision making involved in interpreting Scripture. > > Frankly, if Christians did a better job of actually *obeying* Scripture, I > think we'd have a lot less arguments about the right way to interpret or > define its nature... > > -- Ernie P.
I agree completely. Add to the problem that the evangelical establishment have used "inerrant scripture" to create "inerrant theology" that have subsequently been elevated to a position of "truth" that is equal to the scriptures themselves. I've been asking myself at what point does our insistence on "right doctrine" become idol worship? As you point out even the inerrantists say "the Bible is without error in the original writings". http://www.efca.org/about-efca/statement-faith What exactly is that? Not only do we make absolute statements about the character of God based on inerrant scripture but we also build various political views that also become "inerrant" :) Between having the right theology and all of the other right "views" all of a sudden obeying and believing is becoming a complicated affair! No wonder people throw the baby (as in Christmas) out with the bathwater. I might have a lot of opinions about this and that but let me clarify that I don't think they are inerrant. Lennart _______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
