DaveH wrote: > DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE HAS BEEN > CORRUPTION IN THE MANUSCRIPTS??? > We are all wondering if you will "RESPOND", > Glenn or will your response be a "BAIT AND > SWITCH"!
Glenn wrote: > No, I am not going to respond. It is a waste of time. > You said you agreed with the article. :-) But it obvious > you do not. I'm sorry that you have chosen not to respond, Glenn. I do not think it is obvious that DaveH disagrees with the article. I think that higher criticism goes right in line with Dave's position, and that is what that article was representing. I would like to share the following which comes from an article that I seem to go back to often on this subject. It is by Harold O.J. Brown called, "The Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible." It is found in a book entitled, "The Origin of the Bible," edited by Philip Wesley Comfort. The book is a collection of essays concerning this subject. I wish I could post the whole article, but I don't have it in electronic form and time prevents me from typing in the whole thing. Following are some highlights which I think help define terms that would be most helpful in this discussion. ***** Meaning of Terms "Infallibility" may be called the subjective consequence of divine inspiration; that is, it defines the Scripture as reliable and trustworthy to those who turn to it in search of God's truth. As a source of truth, the Bible is "indefectable" (that is, it cannot fall away or defect from the standard of truth). Consequently, it will never fail or deceive anyone who trusts it. "Inerrancy" is a closely related concept, but a later and less widely accepted term. It connotes that the Bible contains neither errors of act (material errors) nor internal contradictions (formal errors). The concept of infallibility addresses itself to one's personal knowledge of God and assurance of salvation. Inerrancy is concerned more specifically with the accurate transmission of the details of revelation. Although in much theological writing the two terms are used interchangeably, infallibility is the broader term. Those who believe in an inerrant Bible also believe in an infallible Bible. The converse is not necessarily true. Although much depends on how "error" is defined, some scholars argue that the Bible can be infallible (in accomplishing God's purpose) without having to be free of error. They propose a more "dynamic" doctrine of infallibility that would continue to operate even if biblical errors were discovered. A number of contemporary evangelical writers, such as the late Francis A. Schaeffer adn John D. Woodbridge, have objected to any doctrine of "dynamic infallibility" as unbiblical, dualistic, or even nonsensical. Nevertheless, many respected evangelicals believe that one can regard the Bible as "the only perfect rule of faith and practice" without requiring or implying strict inerrancy. ... Most nonevangelical scholars reject both infallibility and inerrancy and see no merit in attempting to separate them. ... ... Properly speaking, inerrancy is attributed only to the original writings or "autographs" of Scripture, which no longer exist. Biblical scholars generally agree that the existing manuscripts of the Bible contain some copyists' errors, usually detectable by comparing later manuscripts with the earliest ones available and by applying textual criticism. Critics of inerrancy and infallibility sometimes argue that since the doctrine applies only to the autographs, it is essentially irrelevant today. ... ... defenders of inerrancy ... have insisted that for all practical purposes (that is, for questions of faith and life), present-day texts and good translations may also be regarded as inerrant. Supporters of inerrancy maintain that the confidence of Christian believers in modern translations of the Bible rests firmly on belief in infallibility of the original writings. ... Problems or Errors? Any alert reader of Scripture will become aware of problems in the text, although many apparent discrepencies or possible errors disappear under open-minded scrutiny. Even after careful study, however, some problems remain. The debate over inerrancy frequently comes down to choosing whether to tolerate such problems as "unanswered questions" or to transfer them to the category of "demonstrated errors." Often that decision reflects one's initial attitude toward Scripture and toward critical methods. If Scripture is accepted as the inspired Word of God, as "the standard that sets the standard," one will be reluctant to charge it with error -- since to do so one must have some other, perhaps higher, norm by which to evaluate Scripture. Historically, doubt about inerrancy followed rather than produced the conviction that the Bible is merely a fallible human book. Hence, one should consider the possibility that recognition of an error in Scripture is the logical consequence of an earlier decision to judge the Bible rather than to let the Bible be the norm for all judgments. ***** DaveH, from the definitions outlined above, would you say that you believe in "infallibility" but not "inerrancy"? Or, would you say that you do not believe in either? Glenn, would you say that you believe in both infallibility and inerrancy? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
