wrote:
>
> G'day Nigel(s),
>
> "Nigel & Michelle Cunningham" <> wrote:
>
>
>Nigel B. Mitchell wrote in message:
> [snip]
>
>>Since the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is unscriptural, you would
>
>>be better off sacrificing it before you start. <>
> Most Bible references regarding the inspiration and authority of
> Scripture refer to Scripture AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME,
> not the original documents.
> Furthermore, I think you will concede that some of the
> "mistakes made in duplicating those original documents"
> were already present in all the OT copies circulating in Jesus' day.
>
> If you accept these two premises, it follows that Jesus acknowledged
> the inspiration and authority of the OT DESPITE ITS ERRORS.
> Which pretty well buries the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
>
> But this doesn't bother me. The standard response to the existence of
> copyists' errors is that God has protected the text to a large (but
> not perfect) degree, so that these errors do not affect doctrine.
> I don't see the problem with extending this response to cover errors
> in the original documents: God inspired the authors as far as was
> necessary, but not so far as to prevent every error.
>
> When I reached this point, I found my confidence in the Bible
> considerably strengthened, because it wasn't undermined every time
> I found a discrepancy I couldn't explain. Ironically, this was how
> I understood the Bible when I first became a Christian - before I
> read evangelical literature which persuaded me that I must accept
> the Bible as inerrant.

Small point: these days 'Evangelicals' are trying to distinguish themselves from 'Fundamentalists'.

Christian Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible in its original autographs. _Some_ 'Conservative Evangelicals' (eg. Francis Schaeffer) might also believe (or have believed in his case) a version of this, but 'Progressive Evangelicals' (usually following people like Carl F.H.Henry and the 'Fuller School') do not. See the articles on Evangelicals on our website.

IOW, Fundamentalists at this point are deductive rationalists, a methodology most Evangelicals would reject. IOW again: PE's would say 'Where the Bible is clear, we're clear; where it isn't, we'll need to live with the Bible's ambiguities.'

Which latter position is where I'm happy to belong...

wrote:

<>

> How so? Jesus acknowledged the inspiration (inerrant autographs)and as
> such it was authoratative.

Where?

<>

Rowland: Small point: these days 'Evangelicals' are trying to distinguish > > themselves from 'Fundamentalists'.

>

> Disagree, some neo evangelicals are trying to establish a new
> understanding for the term evangelical. As I have already posted, but
> will say again, to be evangelical is to hold to the inspiration of
> Scripture.

All evangelicals would agree...

>

> > Christian Fundamentalists believe in the inerrancy of the Bible in its
> > original autographs.
>
> Hold on Rowland, evangelicals have always believed in the inspiration &
> inerrancy of the Scriptures, this is *not* a fundamentalist position (see
> Packer's classic; fundamentalism and the Word of God) but an evangelical
> one.

<>

> Is PE code for dismissing Scripture that you find unacceptable, or are
> you saying that your reason is fallen, and as such there are some
> scriptural truths that you do not understand?

See John Stott's writings on this. Answers: no, yes, yes.

>

> If the former then you are not an evangelical in the proper sense of the
> word. However, if the latter, then I could't agree more, no one has all
> the answers only God. However, then your position is that of the (your
> tags)CE in that you are acknowledging the authority of Scripture over
> your reason. In this we can all stand together as evangelicals.

>

> Regards

Darren Middleton

Nigel B. Mitchell wrote .......IN PART:

>OK - here is a really simple question.
>In Matthew chapter 4 and Luke chapter 4 Jesus is tempted in the
>wilderness after his Baptism. Both gospels describe in almost identical
>detail the three temptations, but they list them in a different order.
>This is an _apparent_ contradiction.
>In a bible written by fallible human beings such contradictions would
>be expected, and immaterial to the overall message.
>In an infallible Bible such a contradiction would cast doubt on the
>veracity and reliability of the whole scripture.

On the other hand, I find such differences comforting.

For example, we have no problem accepting differing accounts from rival news media ..... the news story remains the same even if the reports take different perspectives or convey different details.

Like the replays of different camera angles of a football try, we are enriched with greater understanding of the event.

There're news items are given greater credibility as there is less likelihood of collusion. We know that any eyewitness could correct any poor reporting as was yesterday's case between Kennet and Carr over the management of NSW fire fighting services.

Likewise, as the NT accounts were penned within the living memory of eyewitnesses, their silence on inaccurate NT accounts testify to the reality of the events concerning our Lord and Saviour.

Should any of the NT accounts be deliberately falsified, it would be foolhardy for anyone to fabricate, perpetuate and DIE for such lies.

I'm not going to buy into the current discussion on the infallibility or otherwise of the Bible, except to say that my position is that it's infallible in the same way as a street directory.

It'll get you where you want to go, tell you where all the traffic lights etc. are, and you'd certainly rely on it for street names. But if someone tries to argue from a street directory that every bit of water is the same shade of blue, or that roads have big letters down the middle, they've missed the point.

So IOW, "infallible" needs a bit of spelling out.

Mike Hore