Burden of Proof FAQ

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Rev,

All who assert something have the obligation to prove it.

Those who assert inerrancy are, whether they like it or not, under 
obligation to make their proof as far reaching as their assertion.

Since they assert inerrancy of every verse from Genesis to Revelation, they 
must therefore either prove as much, or qualify that such inerrancy must be 
taken on faith.  Following is my own writing on the terrible burden the 
inerrantist is under when they assert Complete Biblical Inerrancy:
====
Christian apologetics and the unbearable burden of Biblical Inerrancy

The definition of “biblical inerrancy” is logically impossible to prove.

	“The Bible, as it was originally written, is completely and totally free 
from any and all errors”.

Notice first that even if this were true, inerrant originals which perished 
long ago don't do anything for the modern Christian!  Notice secondly that 
this statement is a sweeping assertion (universal positive) that includes 
every single verse in the entire original Bible!  Does the inerrantist, (who 
makes that claim for ALL of the Bible)therefore claim to have found  
ultimate answers to ALL disputes bible scholars have, regarding what the 
true reading of the original is?  If he says yes, then he claims something 
physically impossible, since this claim suffers from the assumption that the 
most reliable manuscripts of the Bible ever written are already known about, 
unprovable at best since it’s a universal negative ("none of the 
as-yet-undiscovered manuscripts of the Bible could possibly be more reliable 
than the ones we presently know about".  Obviously no inerrantist could know 
the future.)  If he answers no, which is more likely, then his all-inclusive 
statement of absolute inerrancy for the entire Bible would have to be 
modified so as to conform more closely to the actual truth of the matter.  
This newly modified statement should then read like this:

“We cannot know for certain if the autograph
manuscripts (originals) were inerrant.”

	While this would be more logical, it produces grave problems for the 
inerrancy position.  How can we assert inerrancy when we don’t know?  If 
it’s just a matter of faith, then this consitutes tacit admission that the 
Bible skeptics win the debate, since things taken by faith are by nature 
unprovables.  If he disagrees, saying that he can know for certain, then he 
obviously has never counted the number of B, C and D ratings that New 
Testament scholars have given to textual variants (almost every other verse 
in the NT, see the critical greek text apparatus, nestle/aland 3rd ed.).  
The inerrantist has obviously never noticed large sections of Scripture in 
the KJV and others, that are missing from still others.  Will our 
inerrantist claim more knowledge than the scholars who worked on different 
Bible versions/translations? If not, then how does he account for bible 
translators with more education than him, making textual choices he 
wouldn’t?  Does he call their integrity into question?  If not, then what?  
He cannot use human weakness as an excuse, since inerrancy is supposed to be 
by God’s miraculous hand.  How funny that what was so easy for the original 
authors of the Bible, since they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, is 
now a battle arena for scholars of like-theological persuasion to fight and 
argue to put bread and butter on the table, what with the royalty checks 
from textual criticism books, etc,.

Since the above modifications to the inerrancy statement so far have only 
created more problems than they solve, perhaps the statement should be 
further modified and read like this:

“I see no difficulties whatsoever with only those Bible verses I have 
actually researched, and I will not presumptously label the bible texts I 
haven't checked as inerrant.”

	This certainly has more common sense behind it.  But if the inerrantist 
makes that above claim, he only proves thereby that he knows nothing of the 
many disagreements over everything among bible commentaries. If he doesn’t 
make that claim (meaning that he instead acknowledges obvious difficulties 
in the biblical text that the latest scholarship hasn’t yet resolved, which 
is what 99% of all inerrantists assent to,) then he would have to modify his 
inerrancy statement even further, like this:

“The Bible verses I have had the time to research are inerrant, even though 
some of them have currently unresolved difficulties.”

	NOW he is asserting that difficulties need not push away the possibility of 
inerrancy.  Why not?  Isn’t IN-errancy a DENIAL of errors?  How is it that 
he could make that statement without knowing what results future scholarship 
will give to the texts which have current “difficulties”?  Perhaps the KJV 
translators never dreamed that Christian scholars today would laugh at their 
translation of Acts 12;4.  With the never-ending quest to "gain the right 
text" within the field of biblical criticism, every decade brings new texts, 
different value ratings to textual variants, and more arguing among God's 
people as to which part of his word is genuine.

If our inerrantist uses the amount of Bible verses he has actually 
researched to argue confidently for the inerrancy of even the verses he 
hasn’t checked, this is faith, not logical necessity, and doesn't do 
anything for the skeptic when he hears "you need to have faith" from 
Protestants and Catholics, any more than hearing the exact words from 
Mormons.

	You are in slippery territory when you argue from a few particular 
instances in order to make broad sweeping statements of the whole thing.  If 
two people in the crowd are noisy, is the whole crowd therefore noisy, 
simply because two of them were?  If one meal at a restaurant tastes bad to 
you, does that mean you would therefore hate ALL their food all the time?

You see then that using the example of a few particulars to support 
universal assertions (inductive arguing) is not usually reliable.  Along 
similer lines, one cannot logically use the correctness of a statement in a 
book to argue for the correctness of all the other statements in that book.  
If our inerrantist wished to remain logical thus far, he would have to 
further modify his statement on inerrancy of the Bible this way:

“The only parts of the Bible which are inerrant are those which all scholars 
and Christians are agreed on.”

Really? Historically, and even today, Christians of all education levels and 
theological persuasions constitute one of the worst fouled up messes of 
disagreement and text-wrestling the world has ever known, most disagreements 
even happening between two or more people of the same denominational 
distinction!  That’s right!  Not only do Baptists disagree with 
Pentacostals, but Pentacostals disagree with Pentacostols (did mary give 
birth to the Heavenly Father, or a different being?) and Baptists disagree 
with Baptists (is the 1611 King James Authorized Version of the Bible, the 
only bible version without error?)

The fires of controversy rage on and on in the Christian world as these two 
denominations wage their own respective internal battles over seemingly 
important questions, the answers to which determine the quality of your walk 
with Christ, and even if you are saved (Can a person be a true Christian and 
still say that Jesus IS the Father in Heaven?  Could a true Christian prefer 
any version of the Bible other than the KJV 1611?)  Not only are there 
disagreements as to how to answer those questions, but there is, believe it 
or not, disagreement about whether your answers to those questions really do 
determine the quality of your Christian walk.  Some say if you think the Son 
and the Father are different persons, you’ll go to Hell.  Then there is 
disagreement over whether Hell is literal fire as traditionally accepted, or 
only figurativally described in the Bible......and even disagreement about 
whether there is conscious existence after physical death......and so and so 
on...and on and on....

	Let us dispense then with the wishful thinking that “all Christian scholars 
and laymen are agreed on....” because there has never been any such thing.  
All Christians agreeing on this or that wouldn’t prove anything anyway, 
since the entire movement could be wrong. There are more non-Christians in 
this world then there are Christians, so inerrantists certainly aren't going 
to use popularity contests to prove anything.

Notice also that this particular modification

“all scholars and laymen are agree on....”

quietly assumes that everybody who claims Christianity really is a 
Christian.  Since many people in the Christian world could be fakes (and the 
NT even warns of it) unbelievers would then be agreeing with Christians.  
This couldn’t last long since the two groups are polar opposites, not doing 
any good for the picture of total agreement.

Some verses say Jesus is God, others describe him in a way that wouldn’t 
allow him to have that nature.  Since faith is part of the solution to this 
important Christological quarrel among “Christians”  I would not accept it 
as proof of orthodoxy or heresy.  Since total agreement among all Christians 
was necessary for the last above inerrancy statement modification, our 
disposal of that presupposition is the disposal of the statement resting on 
it. There are more “Christian brothers” to argue among themselves about the 
meaning of this or that text, than there are bible skeptics.  And if you 
can’t even be certain of what a text means, you have no hope of proving 
inerrancy.

	Hopefully I have shown that the little innocent looking “the Bible is 
inerrant” statement is extremely problematic, since the presuppositions upon 
which it is based are not agreed upon even among Christians of similer 
theological persuasion.  It is logically impossible to prove the inerrancy 
position.

Of course the proper way to go about it is for the inerrantist to refute 
interpretations of bible passages skeptics give to prove errancy.  I was 
just showing that inerrancy is indefensable logically.  Arguing for the 
correctness/reliability of select passages which skeptics point to is 
different than making a sweeping positive case for the whole bible’s totally 
flawless character.

A logically sound way to assert inerrancy is to put it this way:  “I have 
never seen evidence which conclusively proves a genuine error in the Bible.”

While this is a totally objective way to approach the problem, the 
inerrantist who speaks that way usually immediately proceeds to thereby 
assume inerrancy till it is disproven.  Assuming that something is correct 
because one hasn't seen evidence to the contrary, is called AD IGNORANTIAM 
argumentation.  There is a man on the moon.  How do I know that?  Well, can 
you prove that there ISN'T?

Christian


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

• Previous message: Inerrancy doctrine
• Next message: The firmament
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]