Morgan
I beleive that the Bible is the inspired revelation of God, and therefore
without error. However, error needs to be defined carefully if any productive
discussuion is to ensue. I've heard charges leveled that the Bible contains
certain conradictions, yet when the list of supposed contradictions is
produced, actual, logical contradictions are not present.
Izz
If so, which Bible version do you consider error-free?
Morgan
I would not assert that any translation of the Bible possesses complete
inerrancy, but would only ascribe such a title to the ancient parchment and
vellum manuscripts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Admitedly
some Christians will argue that the King James version of the Bible is
inerrant, yet any biblical historian knows that the original published in
1611 was plagued with spelling and grammatical errors (i.e., hardly
inerrant).
Izz
Do you believe that any of these inerrant manuscripts exist today?
Morgan
Yes I do. The Vatican Manuscript (i.e., Codex B), the Sinaitic Manuscript
(i.e., Codex Aleph), and the Alexandrian Manuscript (i.e., Codex A), the
manuscript of Ehpraem (i.e., Codex C), The Codex Bezae (i.e., Codex D) are a
few examples that come to mind.
Izz
Have you joined the Errancy list?
Morgan
The answer to your question is no. I think it absurd to presume that anyone
may reasonably dialogue upon the topic of biblical inerrancy without
addressing the subject of science in some way, not to mention epistomology,
and eventually theism. Then again, if I were an athiest, I probably wouldn't
wish to defend such a weak proposition. I am certainly interested in
discussion, but not when it is so unecessarily intellectually choked.
(DAVE 4/22) Izz: Agreed. Everytime epistomology or theism etc are brought
up, the atheist or errantist demands that we stick with "errancy"
discussions, and thereforeavoids the issues. Why is this? Since there is a
creation account in the Bible, creation is admissible as subject material
for debate on an errancy listing. Same with the existence of God. Same
with the existence of hell. And with the issue of sin. And with our
"purpose" on earth, and our eventual "destiny". And much more. ALL of this
is addressed in this supposedly errant book, yet you and others wish to
avoid discussion on them. Why is this? Is there something about these
issues that troubles you in such a way that you DON'T believe that the Bible
is necessarily errant about them?
I disagree with Morgan a little here - saying that the atheist may not want
to defend such a weak position when it comes to these isssues - they really
don't have a position to defend at all it seems.
So these calls to "get back to errancy discussions" are really the ultimate
dodge - the real issues all of a sudden "don't apply" to biblical inerrancy
- I wonder why.
Izz
How can these manuscripts all be inerrant? They do not agree, but vary.
Morgan
First off, there is a vast chasm that exists between the notion of variance,
and that of outright contradiction.
(DAVE 4/22) Izz: Again, I agree. Case in point - did Aaron die in
Moserath or on Mount Hor? Variance? Yes it seems so. Outright
contradiction? Who can know without knowing the information concerning
these places?
Izz
Baloney. We are talking about copies of one book, aren't we? Any difference
at all is a contradiction.
(DAVE 4/22) Izz: Copies of one book can call the same place by two
different names and still be inerrant. I am still waiting to see how you
know for a fact that because the Bible says that Aaron died at Moserath and
Aaron died at Mount Hor, that one or both of these is wrong. When you do,
I'll agree with your statement.
Morgan
I now challenge you to supply the
examples of these manuscript disagreements, and please use concrete,
specific, and detailed examples. If you wish to call the Bible's bluff, you
must be prepared to have you bluff called.
Izz
I don't have the slightest clue what you mean by "bluffing". As to citing
examples of the differences, are you asking me to prove there are
differences, because you do not believe there are any, or is this challenge
simply an effort to bring discussion to a halt, since you expect, quite
rightly, that I do not have personal access to all the manuscripts listed? If
you are merely trying to be difficult, there is no point in going on.
Otherwise, I expect you to acknowledge that these manuscripts are in no ways
identical.
(DAVE 4/22) Izz: Seems like you may be the one avoiding the issue - being
"difficult" as you say. Morgan simply wants concrete support for your
contradiction claim. How is he supposed to prove something is not a
contradiction when no one has shown that it IS a contradiction in the first
place?
Morgan
PS: Since each of the manuscripts I listed is was penned in the Koine Greek
language, I expect that you are familiar with that language thoroughly enough
to recognize such supposed contradictions within those manuscripts.
Izz
I do not need to be personally familiar with these documents in order to
discuss them. I have read about them, and am quite content to use the
knowledge of others, without verifying everything myself.
(DAVE 4/22) Izz: Then you are a man of faith, and a great deal of
ignorance - you are making positive assertions about something you haven't
analyzed yourself? If the roles were reversed, you and others would be
saying that Christians were being completely dishonest in saying something
like this. Let me re-state what you said "I do not need to be personally
familiar with these documents in order to discuss them" - wow.
Izz
Frankly, I feel you
are trying to end the discussion, since you can see that the path we are
taking will lead you to admit that your belief in the inerrancy of the Bible
is either false or meaningless.
(DAVE 4/22) Izz: No, he's trying to start one with you it seems. Why
don't you answer his challenge? Seems simple enough. Or do you have to
consult the "knowledge of others" before making your next move? I suggest
you begin looking at things for yourself.
By the way, where is Moserath Izz?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
Izz
Rather an unpleasant fellow. I am glad he did not join the list. I am quite
aware, thanks to some of you on this list, of web pages that show some of the
differences and problems caused by the variances between the manuscripts we
have. However, I had no intention of letting this fellow get away with his
absurd demand that I prove something which he had not even taken a stand
against. I feel this fellow to be quite dishonest, and I would not be
surprised if he is a bad apple indeed.
(DAVe 4/22) Izz: This fellow demanded that you prove that something
actually IS a contradiction. Since you say it is, that shouldn't be a
problem for you. It seems, with your refusal to accept this challenge, that
there really is NO contradiction and that it is you who is being, as you
say, "dishonest".
Izz, please forward this to Morgan and invite him to our list on my behalf.
Many thanks.
Dave.
"I do not need to be personally familiar with these documents in order to
discuss them. I have read about them, and am quite content to use the
knowledge of others, without verifying everything myself."
- An Errantist On This Listing