Biblical Inerrency

[ed]

Consider Matthew 16:24-28

24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Pretty clear that this was not true. Read it in a broader content here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

Now, a believer will engage in some level of arm waving apologetics. I don't really care what the specific arguments are, they are completely irrelevant to my thesis here. The gist of the arguments is that God is a kidder. Strip away all the pious crap and that is why you should not be put off by things that are downright wrong: God likes to kid.

Hmmmm.. ok. When is he kidding? Only when you find him in a fib? Well, that makes no sense. If God is a kidder he'll kid when he damn well pleases. He IS God, after all. That said then what is the correct position on interpreting the Bible? I submit that you cannot interpret at all. It is as if the damn thing does not exist because you can have no idea when you are being lied to. So use common sense and carry on.

[gnome]

My usual question is "which translation is inerrant?" especially considering how many editorial decisions formed various versions of the scripture. If I'm not mistaken there was a time when scribes and translators were not shy about changing adding bits here and there when they saw fit. I'm not sure biblical literalism even existed then. So were they changing it from wrong to right? Hell, Ingersoll speculated that the parts that receive the most reverence today are ones that were likely added. (Like how Aladdin and Ali Baba were not originally part of the tales that formed the Arabian Nights lore)

The closest I can get, imagining myself on the other side of this argument, is that there is a sort of "platonic" scripture that is the true and inerrant version, and translations that exist are necessarily imperfect, especially given the fallible hand of man in their compiling and presentation. This still, however, leads to the observation that any particular human version you happen to be reading may have parts that are just plain wrong.

Except my favorite. That one comes the closest to the True Word, unless you find something obviously problematic, in which case just that part is wrong, or you're just not reading it right.

Without sarcasm, the most intellectually consistent way to promote and practice Christianity is not to marry oneself to a doctrine of inerrancy.

[sparks]

Why bother with the inerrancy shtick?

It's all a bunch of myth all about peeps that never existed in the first place.

[ed]

My usual question is "which translation is inerrant?" especially considering how many editorial decisions formed various versions of the scripture. If I'm not mistaken there was a time when scribes and translators were not shy about changing adding bits here and there when they saw fit. I'm not sure biblical literalism even existed then. So were they changing it from wrong to right? Hell, Ingersoll speculated that the parts that receive the most reverence today are ones that were likely added. (Like how Aladdin and Ali Baba were not originally part of the tales that formed the Arabian Nights lore)

The closest I can get, imagining myself on the other side of this argument, is that there is a sort of "platonic" scripture that is the true and inerrant version, and translations that exist are necessarily imperfect, especially given the fallible hand of man in their compiling and presentation. This still, however, leads to the observation that any particular human version you happen to be reading may have parts that are just plain wrong.

Except my favorite. That one comes the closest to the True Word, unless you find something obviously problematic, in which case just that part is wrong, or you're just not reading it right.

Without sarcasm, the most intellectually consistent way to promote and practice Christianity is not to marry oneself to a doctrine of inerrancy.

Well, I guess it depends who you are arguing with. Is the bible (pick yer version) inerrent or is it man's translation of gods word. Or is there a proto version. like there is supposed to be a lost manuscript that is referred to regarding Arthur. That all references come from this missing manuscript?

The story above appears in 3 of the gospels more or less. It is probably present in every translation. It is a spearpoint back to whenever the fuck these things were written.. It didn't happen. Why? Does God lie? When?

[Fid]

Mel Brooks Carl Reiner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Year_Old_Man

[gnome]

Well, I guess it depends who you are arguing with. Is the bible (pick yer version) inerrent or is it man's translation of gods word. Or is there a proto version. like there is supposed to be a lost manuscript that is referred to regarding Arthur. That all references come from this missing manuscript?

The story above appears in 3 of the gospels more or less. It is probably present in every translation. It is a spearpoint back to whenever the fuck these things were written.. It didn't happen. Why? Does God lie? When?

Nobody seems to take up the position I propose. Instead they claim their favorite translation was written with the assistance of the guiding hand of God, and the others were not. Which is a convenient claim, but silly. If God is willing to interfere in free will (preventing their favorite fallible scribe or editor from making mistakes similar to others) because of the vital importance of ensuring there is an ideal translation of God's word, then it seems odd that he would forego similar intrusion to keep competing versions from being created in his name. Why guide only your favorite, instead of all? "To test your faith" the answer will be. Yeah, what a great test. *Game show music plays* "Here's seven versions of the Holy Scripture that are largely similar. Pick the right one, or your faith is lesser and you might go to hell!!"

[Doctor X]

Since one cannot decide on the actual content of each text since there are no autographs or anything approaching the respective ur-texts, inerrancy remains just another fairy tale.

– J.D.

[Fid]

Goddamit just scroll up. This is in fact what matters.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Year_Old_Man