Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

Things being brought into question that nevertheless were accepted by the majority do not compromise the inerrancy of the final collection. Many of the books of the Bible were questioned at one time or another. There was always a core that was recognized by all, and I don't know what all those included, but others were questioned and nevertheless finally accepted. Traditional Bible believers make use of all the same advantages of modern scholarship. It's quite sophisticated. But the word "modern" usually implies a mental set that comes to the task with modernist prejudices, such as against the reality of miracles and the supernatural, or an opinion about the dating of the books based on that preconception, and so on. It isn't the sophistication but the preconceptions that are the problem. Unfortunately this isn't so. Anti-supernatural bias has strongly affected the dating of the Old Testament, for instance, since they refuse to accept the reality of prophecy and are sure that therefore the prophetic books that appear to be fulfilled in their traditional placement must have been written after the events prophesied.And as usual with anything that investigates the past, scholarship is only as good as the interpretation of it.

But this is not what happens. The bias itself determines what the scholar finds. I tried to find a particular admitted case of this but it's not online or I don't know how to look it up. It's not scholarship, it's an illusion of scholarship that is really guided by prejudice.

I'm not talking about scholarship, I'm talking about people led by the Holy Spirit. That is how the authenticity of inspiration of the Biblical writings was originally determined. Scholarship has nothing to say about the criteria of inspiration. Not particularly useful facts, and not when there is a dullwitted rejection of spiritual criteria in favor of irrelevant intellectual criteria based on prejudice against the supernatural. No worry. You'll never convince true believers but you'll always have an audience of unbelievers.And for the umpteenth time, Galileo was opposed by a corrupt Roman church enamored of Aristotle's pagan cosmology, not the Bible. Well, at least at the very end of time.

The canon was determined before the Roman church got the power it had later, and is not associated with the Roman church. Protestants later changed a few things, mostly rejecting the Apocrypha, but in general regard the early centuries as simply Christian, before the Roman church veered so deeply into apostasy the Protestant Reformation became necessary. Their interpretation of scripture was corrupted by Aristotle through Aquinas. I don't remember Galileo's and your link doesn't spell it out, but his interpretation was no doubt closer to the Protestant view.

Inerrancy only applies to the original writings, not translations. And it means that God oversaw the whole. It is very odd to trust parts of it for some of its revelations but not others it seems to me. What basis do you have to trust any of it if it all isn't trustworthy? What basis do you have not to trust any of it? What makes the words of Jesus any more trustworthy than the words of Moses in Genesis? There are no external sources for either. If you trust modern science instead of Genesis, then what's to stop you from believing all the debunkery modern thought can bring against every other book in the Bible? The Jesus Seminar has eliminated much of what Jesus said for instance.Certainly the Holy Spirit has the power and the reason to preserve this crucially important revelation for the sake of God's people. Jesus referred to Genesis as if it were truth same as He referred to other books of the Bible. He treated the Flood as reality, and the story of Jonah as reality. I would think that believing in Jesus would include believing in all his words in the NT, not just some you pick and choose as the Jesus Seminar does.I'm astonished that anyone would ask how it can be known that the canon was originally determined on a spiritual basis and demand proof of this, without which the contention would be denied, but I suppose I'm naive and unbelievers can't be expected to understand anything about these things. A believer knows, that's all. The books that the believers recognized as authentic by the Holy Spirit are the ones that were unconditionally accepted. There is historical writing to that effect too, certainly, only I don't know how to track it down.

If you can't trust the Holy Spirit in God's believers you can't trust anything else you think is the Holy Spirit either.

Because we are also fallen there were some disputes. But the main collection of books was recognized easily by the first believers.

Just because the Holy Spirit guided the believers in recognizing the canon doesn't mean they had taken leave of their rational minds. Of course there are also rational considerations involved. But ONLY believers have the Holy Spirit and that is the MAIN consideration in the recognition of the canon.

As I understand it there were simply lists compiled over the centuries, and it didn't exactly "come into existence" at one particular time at all, not the Council of Nicea either, which has been alleged.The core list never changed. I appreciated truthlover's link to the Muratorian List. Very basic list of the canononical books from 170 AD. The orthodox lists always contained those books. Very few were in dispute. Edited by AdminJar, : fix opening quote

I know because I too have the Holy Spirit and do not put my trust in men or I'd trust all the modern scholars who are constantly disrupting the traditional Bible.

I referred only to the MAIN BOOKS of the canon even in my very first post on the subject, jar. I know there were some disputed books but the core of the canon was established from an early time and was never changed. That Muratorian List contains the essentials right there.When we say the original was inerrant we aren't claiming to know exactly what was in it, only that we know it was inspired in a way copies aren't. But we do pretty much know what the originals looked like based on all the copies from them. It's a rigorous science reconstructing earlier texts, not perfect but pretty trustworthy.Another thing that convinces a person of overall inerrancy, and certainly of the authenticity of what is now our canon, is the ways it all hangs together, each part referring to other parts and sewing it all together. But only a believer would appreciate this kind of internal evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Both. They're synonymous really.

quote:

---

Do we know exactly what was in the originals?

---

For most of it yes, for some of it, close.

quote:

---

Beyond the first five books of the Bible are there ANY other books common to all Canon?

---

I've already answered this. The Muratorian list that truthlover mentioned is a good start:{EDIT: Had the wrong URL. This one should be the right one:The Muratorian Fragment

quote:

---

Yet I ...do not see that internal consistency. For example, much of the concept of the Fall of Satan comes from Enoch, yet Enoch is not part of YOUR Canon.

---

Bible studies I'm familiar with find it all in Isaiah and Ezekiel.The Apocrypha are not considered inspired but some of them are respected as good teaching nevertheless. But again, the fall of Satan is taught from Isaiah and Ezekiel in my experience.

quote:

---

Are there any originals of ANY book of the Bible?

---

Of course not. The earliest copies are a very few from the second century. This has been discussed in great detail on earlier threads.

quote:

---

Is there any reason to think that Jesus references to Genesis were any different than His references to other known experiences and common culture?

---

They certainly authenticate the book of Genesis. Otherwise I have no idea what you are referring to.

quote:

---

As asked above, are there ANY books other than the first five books of the Bible that are common to ALL Canon?

---

ALL canon? I have no idea. Western canon yes, and the Muratorian list should do it. The Muratorian FragmentEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : change URLEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes. The one we have now, the 66 books now, 39 OT and 27 NT, which I don't think was quite what they had then. I've already answered this charge. I'm trusting men led by the Holy Spirit through my own leading by the Holy Spirit.And that process involves critical thinking, by the way. It just disagrees with non-Holy-Spirit-inspired critical thinking.Trusting in the mute Creation over words designed to be understood by the human mind makes no sense but it's advocated here frequently as if it did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No it cannot tell that to everyone, only to a few who have studied the subject. That's the point. Only words speak to everyone, trees do not. The Bible speaks to everyone, trees do not.Also, WHAT the tree "says" is extremely limited and unimportant by comparison to the Bible. The differences that you like to multiply may be quantitatively impressive but qualitatively they are very minor and do not affect anything crucial. There are always those, however, who will "wrest them to their own destruction" by ignoring their plain meaning. Only the very few of all the world's population who study science can read them. The Bible can be read or understood by hearing it, by everyone.And again, the physical laws speak of unimportant things by comparison with the Bible. Ridiculously unimportant things by comparison with the absolutely infinitely important things of the Bible. You are so wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.