Errancy is an excuse made by the ignorant to dismiss the entire source.
no, inerrency is. because, based on the claim that bible is the inerrent word of god, when a single error is found, the entire thing can be descarded as false. this sends foolish creationists like hovind trying to prove that every word of the bible is literally true, because otherwise their faith has no foundation.
this does an INCREDIBLY disservice to the religion.
i believe the bible to be errant. and yet i do not toss it all. it was never meant to be a science textbook, and putting in that place not only demeans the bible, but removes all actual meaning from it.
i find that allowing for error, human error, elevates the text above human problems. basically, god was essentially right, and trying to convey a message, let's look at what he's trying to say, instead "god said there was a flood!"
which is more important, the message of the bible, or the details for it? you're straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
but here, this one will bake your literalist inerrent mind.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
why does jesus call himself lucifer?
see inerrency prescribes that the ENGLISH version of the bible has to be true. why? they only way out of this one is to look at the symbolism you're missing, the context and origin and misrepresentation of the name lucifer, and realize that something you heard about the bible is fundamentally wrong and unsupported by the text.
as an excercise, we'll see what you can find. but i assure, this is not an error.
The Bible has errors because the original manuscripts contain errors. The reason for being of theologians is to correct the errors so that the pure word of God remains.
the instruction to hebrew scribes and rabbis is to not alter a single letter. the write midrashes, non-holy texts authored by real people, to explain question, issues, symbolism, meaning, etc. kind of like paul.
or is the word of paul also the word of god? i certainly do not worship paul, nore do i beleve very much of what he says.
The claim of the Canon is that the canonized sources are the eternal word of God. When God Himself possesses His word it is obviously inerrant. When He transfers that word to humans for recording the potential for error is instantly realized. However, all the original source manuscripts, from all the dead languages contain a maximum 5% variation in content. This means that the Bible is consistent with the original sources to a 5% degree of variation. This 5% is where theologians enter the picture and determine by various means which source is correct and which is not.
really, i've read a targum with a different name of god in genesis 1:1. the story differed vastly from there. isn't that important? yes, god has a name. several, actually. the problem with the targum is that it uses a never-seen name in place of the standard title, eloyhim meaning "gods" (yes. it's plural, like cherubim, seraphim, nephilim, etc)
let me explain to you breifly the history and purpose of the bible.
moses, or someone writing for him, receives the torah from god, and the qabala from the angels. to the torah are added texts of histories, etc, until about the time of chronicles, when the torah and the ark of covenant are inexplicably lost. the hebrews are then sent into babylonian captivity, and there numerous prophesy books are written. in an effort to preserve the religion, the council of rabbis reconstructs the original torah from memory. the have a number of drafts and different versions, called targums. when agreement couldnot be met, it seems both stories were put it. (for instance, why are there two creation stories?) stories were borrowed and modified from the babylonians at this point, probably accidentally. the idea was to keep the two cultures from merging, which indicates there were starting to.
this set of books, the torah and tanakh are closed, and translated into greek for the library of alexandria. only several poor copies remain after the library was destroyed. this is called the septuigint. from this, most modern translation arise, but new information, NOT IN THE SEPTUGIANT, has been found in the dead sea scrolls, kepts by a slightly heretical offshoot of messianic judaism a few hunder years before christ. compared the hebrew and even the catholic bible, the christian bible is missing a few chapters, and even whole books. which one is right?
now, this is all before jesus. want me to get into the mess that's the new testament, or do you get the point? you'll have to forgive any errors, this is from memory and it's been quite a day.
but how, given this information, can you say your english bible is not significantly different from it's source?
™ Version 4.2
