From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

The claim that the Bible is inerrant is either laughable or requires considerable unpacking.

As anyone who has studied the subject at all will know, any one Biblical document is full of errors. There are spelling mistakes, words repeated
or omitted - sometimes even whole lines repeated or omitted! There is a
whole class of study of these things and posh Latin names for the most
common mistakes.

However these errors are easily corrected by comparing different
manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus may leave out the extra 'g' in 'aggelos'
but Codex Alexandrinus may include it, indicating that the omission is
indeed a spelling mistake, not a revelation about a new class of
heavenly beings!

Less well known is the fact that there are different textual traditions.
The Textus Receptus, which was the basis of the KJV version of the
Bible, follows the Masoretic tradition, but there are variations between
that and what appears in the LXX, the Greek translation of the Bible
made before Christ. Scholars were surprised to find Hebrew texts from
Qumran which support the variant readings of the LXX!

To take just one example: according to the Masoretic text, there were
1656 years between Creation and the Flood. The LXX gives something like
2242 while the Samaritan Penteteuch only has 1307. The Masoretic text is
more internally consistent, but to what extent is that due to the
scribes having better calculators rather than better sources?

Then, of course, there are the difficulties in what appear to be
statements of fact. Anyone who has tried to solve the problem of the chronology of the Hebrew kings will be only too aware of this (and
despite the ingenious and, I believe, correct solution offered by Edwin Thiele, even he had to conclude that one particular pair of figures is a mistake). Less esoteric is the question of whether Jesus encountered one demoniac or two in the vicinity of Gadara?

So the bald claim that the Bible is inerrant merely reveals how little
the person making the claim has studied the Bible.

On the other hand, the Bible is remarkably accurate. Whether we are
talking about Luke'a book of Acts - which has been attacked by various scholars who have been left with egg on their faces when archaeology or historical research has vindicated Luke's statements - or historical statements in the Old Testament such as the position occupied by
Belshazzar (or even his existence!), the Bible has been repeatedly corroborated by the evidence.

The same can also be said about the various predictions made by the
Bible prophets. Babylon is indeed uninhabited ruins, sheep and goats do
indeed wander among the palaces of Nineveh, Egypt has never again had a
native ruler, and so on. Compared with the vague and contradictory
ramblings of Nostradamus, the Bible is indeed the word of a God Who
knows and controls the future.

Even the Biblical text can be considered remarkably reliable. The
discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which pushed our documentary
knowledge back by about a thousand years, confirms that the Bible has remarkably few errors of transmission. There is ample evidence against
Muslims and others who claim that the Bible was altered by the Catholics
or some other authority group.

The conclusion has to be that when we approach the Bible, we are
justified in a presumption of accuracy and correctness. Apparent contradictions are either misundertandings on our part or lack of
knowledge. There were probably two demoniacs, but one left as soon as he
was healed and only one stayed to beg permission to join the disciples. Belshazzar really existed but was king over the city of Babylon, not
over the whole Babylonian empire. And so on.

It is when we come to the question of Biblical interpretation that
things get more awkward. Did God tell Moses to write that homosexuals
were to be executed? I feel safe in asserting that God did indeed issue
that decree. Are Christians today authorised to kill homosexuals? That
is a matter of interpretation into which our understanding of the
Christian economy must enter. (And for the record, I believe the answer
is a definite "No".)

Are women allowed to speak in church? Paul certainly wrote what is
recorded in the Bible, but do those words still apply today? That is a
matter of interpretation in which not just Paul's statement on women but
his other statements about our position before God and the history of
church organisation are all relevant.

To conclude:
1. We can presume that the Bible is accurate until proven otherwise.
2. As Christians, we must take the entirety of revelation into account.
We do not base doctrine on a single verse.
3. When it comes to interpretation, humility and a willingness to
consider alternative interpretations is wise.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2