The real problem with an inerrant Bible (Jesus, ritual, virgin)

[Scuba Pete]

Reactive or proactive? I abhor the latter.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by pah

I keep hoping for an answer from a Christian that the details really don't matter. The truth and lesson for Judas's death is that he died with guilt for betraying Jesus. When Christians focus on the details it detracts from the truth.

YES!!

This is what I keep waiting for.

It cannot be argued or debated becuase it is true.

It is the lesson that counts and clinging, reaching, and twisting the words to fit literally actually destroy the purpose behind them.

Thanks pah, I would frubal you but it seems the frubals have disappeared.

[Scuba Pete]

and clinging, reaching, and twisting the words to fit literally actually destroy the purpose behind them.

It seems that the converse is equally as true, if not more so!

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I have only surmised that the Bible does not seem to claim inerrancy.

And what if it did? Would that make it inerrant?

Originally Posted by NetDoc

God excels in working through flawed humans so why not flawed scriptures?

Good point.

Originally Posted by NetDoc

As for the slightly "off topic", I would love to hear who or what you think you rely on.

I rely on myself, as you do. I just don't call parts of my own psyche "God". You might be interested in reading a thread in Religious Debates called "Faith in Man" for further discussion on this topic.

[Scuba Pete]

Would that make it inerrant?

Actually, that it does not claim inerrency, does not make it flawed. If God inspired it, then he provided that it has given us all we need to believe in him. No more and no less. That's niether inductive or abductive... it is deductive.

[oracle]

the whole underlying message of the bible is not based on inerrancy, thats not why the bible was written. It's a fact that it's not inerrant and consists of grammatical errors. If you knew the underlying spiritual message, you would not quibble over it's historical accuracy or grammatical consistency within the whole context. The true message which is grasped by understanding the bible beyond a literalistic point of view is consistent and infallible in it's meaning. It has spiritual significance. It's not a textbook of historical events, nor is it some feat of perfect literature, which unfortunately has been claimed to be so.

[Ronald]

Originally Posted by pah

Ronald,

Do you accept "scribal errors" as being beyond inerrancy? Or do you subscribe to the frequently expressed bit of Christian dogma that only the originals are error-free?

pah, The historical account is that says Matthew wrote his original in Hebrew. Since it can't be produced, we can only speculate as to its content. One would think he would write it as it happened, he would have nothing to gain by embellishing his account. If I made a quess I would surmise it would be accurate. That being said I have no clue, only it is recorded as historical.
I have seen writings of scholars in the Jerusalem Institute speaking of their efforts to back translate the gospels into Hebrew, stating that some of them(gospels) large portions of them easily back translate giving the appearance of being transliterated from Hebrew documents, My mind is that these portions are from the original writers document.
The places that defy back translation into Hebrew, they, surmise were added by someone. I assume the changes were to change the meaning to their advantage. Having something to gain by their additions, insertions and interpretations.
As I said there is enough truth left in the scriptures (New Testament) to do its job of the leading people to the Ministry of Yeshua/Jesus. God's word will not return to Him void!

[painted wolf]

Matthew would have EVERYTHING to gain by embelishing his account. The better the story the more likely it is to draw believers and sound 'devine'.
Remember they had to compete with Zeus, Herculies and his fellows.

wa:do

[Scuba Pete]

Well now you are comparing Matthew to Benny Hinn. I hope you don't mind if I take umbrage with that statement.