The Fundamentals. Part 1: Inerrancy of the Bible.

[Ricardo]

(11-07-2011 11:57 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  It's just about impossible to interact with your discussions because of things like this. On the one hand you are quick to point out to others that what they believe is "true for them" and that things mean different things to people and all we can do is try and love God and so on. Then you do what you try to correct people for all the time and tell Elijah that you have now are talking about something that isn't relative after all.

Yes, if I was to be consistent I would live and let live. I keep telling myself I am no longer a fundamentalist. So, why do I want/need to come back to sites such as this one to relive the rejection?

I see those programs on TV about hoarders, and can’t help but see the connection: I spend so much of my life hoarding doctrines, rules and intellectual claptrap, that there is little or no room for a relationship with a living God who offers life in abundance! And just as in those shows, I keep going from hoarding to throwing everything out to hoarding back again. I’m a Recovering Fundamentalist.

Life is an adventure! I’m sure God is the first one who wants to see what we are capable of when we put our trust in Him. Instead we keep hoarding shtuff, trying to make life about a set of rules to follow.

I’m sure I could comb through Scripture and find biblical support for what I’m saying, check everything out, keep the good stuff. But that is the trap I’m trying so hard to get myself out of.

The bible is not a box to keep us safe but a springboard to launch us into a life where we can be all that we can be. And God will be there, as the Ground of All Being. The I AM.

[Tony Mel]

(11-07-2011 02:55 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  The bible is not a box to keep us safe but a springboard to launch us into a life where we can be all that we can be. And God will be there, as the Ground of All Being. The I AM.

You mean that you don't believe in the regulative principle?

[dthatcher]

There are the autographa. There are multiple manuscripts representing the autographa. There are multiple collations of those manuscripts based on differing text-crit methodology (MajT, CT, TR). There are multiple editions of these collations (various TRs, for the CT you have the original WH text and NA 1-27, there multiple editions of the Majority Text). There are multiple translations of these editions. And then there are multiple interpretations of these translations.
Being KJVO is sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalala......"
It is one of the reasons I like the NRSV. It was an interdenominational and interfaith (Christian and Jewish) effort. I feel like I am getting a level of consensus (not to mention scholarship) that provides me with a text that is not heavily biased.
The old canard that textual variations don't affect doctrine is largely true. Ultimately, the greater concern to Biblical truth is not textual criticism and translation but interpretation. The Mormons are KJVO but they and IFB KJVOs are miles apart.

[Elijah Craig]

If text criticism had no effect on doctrine there would be no reason to engage in it.

[Elijah Craig]

(11-07-2011 01:01 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  I don't really see that in Ricardo's writing. What I think I see is that he is saying that spiritual experiences cannot be fully explained by rational logic so why put that standard on the bible?

When I think of inerrancy I think "no error whatsoever" and my experience with some people has led me to believe that is their belief too.

The title of the thread is "The Fundamentals, Part 1: Innerancy of the Bible." If Ricardo is going to criticize The Fundamentals then he needs to use words the same way The Fundamentals do. Otherwise he is beating a straw man.

[dthatcher]

(11-09-2011 10:24 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  If text criticism had no effect on doctrine there would be no reason to engage in it.

Textual criticism, as I see it, is a clarification and maintenance type discipline. Nobody expects a new manuscript to change traditional Christian belief. Since the introduction of the Westcott-Hort text and it's UBS/NA progeny, I can't think of a single doctrine that has changed because of it...

[Elijah Craig]

But variants are still discussed in critical commentaries because individual variants do have an effect. However, in most cases the variants that would cause serious adjustments to doctrine are considered to be scribal errors and are not considered.

This could change moving forward, as critics like Ehrman have argued that the text was intentionally altered by the orthodox to strengthen their position-- and that this altering was concentrated in and around Alexandria, which conveniently happens to be the place where the manuscripts most important to modern text criticism originate.

But more simply, the fact you chose one Bible is proof that you think it has some effect. Not they kind of crude, drastic effect that KJBOs would argue, but it has an effect or you'd just go with which one is easiest to read or has the shiniest cover or gets the most chicks.

[lucrezaborgia]

(11-09-2011 10:41 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  or gets the most chicks.

Is that a bible in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

[Elijah Craig]

My Greek manuscripts are huge. Like those scrolls the rabbi takes out of the cabinent in the synagogue.

[dthatcher]

Elijah, I think Ehrman tends to overstate the issue. I'd be interested to see a variant that affects doctrine where the NA reading is graded C or lower in the apparatus OR even where the NA disagrees with the Majority Text(MajT) or even the TR/Byzantine(Byz).
I stipulate these conditions based upon a far less skeptical view of the MS tradition(s) that Ehrman, one I think that finds pretty decent support despite the doubt he tries to heap on it. The Greer-Heard debate a few years ago between Ehrman and Dan Wallace was very good and shows how much evidence is on the side of mainstream NT text-crit scholarship.