Comments on: A response to Glenn Peoples’s ‘No, I am not an inerrantist’

By: Sunday Study: Inerrancy and Biblical Authority « Theology Geek NZ

Sunday Study: Inerrancy and Biblical Authority « Theology Geek NZ — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:29:47 +0000

[...] A response to Glenn Peoples’s ‘No, I am not an inerrantist’ Bnonn argues that Peoples is attacking a straw-man. The doctrine that the bible is inerrant does [...]

By: Sunday Study: Inerrancy and Biblical Authority | MandM

Sunday Study: Inerrancy and Biblical Authority | MandM — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:28:28 +0000

[...] A response to Glenn Peoples’s ‘No, I am not an inerrantist’ Bnonn argues that Peoples is attacking a straw-man. The doctrine that the bible is inerrant does [...]

By: Dominic Bnonn Tennant

Dominic Bnonn Tennant — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:08:46 +0000

On an apologetic level, perhaps you’d have a point. But this discussion is an internal one between Christians, and so is a theological issue.

By: Christian Linnell

Christian Linnell — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:52:10 +0000

Interesting article; but given belief in Biblical inerrancy requires a leap of faith, and cannot be satisfactorily justified in logical terms (at least so say my Christian friends*), is it really possible to deny belief in Biblical errancy on logical grounds, or even by using the Bible at all?

*to elaborate, my view on this is that since
a) The Bible has passages saying that the Bible is true
b) Those passages are in the Bible

One cannot therefore differentiate between a Bible that lies about its truth and a Bible that is actually true, using the Bible itself.

AND, given

c) Other religious texts make the same claim of inerrancy, and claim the Christian religion is false, while the Bible makes several references to the false gods of other religions. Thus, either one religion (or no religion) is inerrant, and the texts themselves make it impossible to tell.

It is clear that an external source is required to determine errancy. My Christian friends (errantists and inerrantists alike) tend to agree with me here.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:55 +0000

Good thoughts, Bnonn. This is classic Presentism – a fallacy which I find to be so prevelant that it could be described as a prominent feature of the lauded ‘modern western journalism.’ You cannot simply separate the writings of scripture from the culture, time, author, audiance, and circumstances, and still hope to determine truth. As you alluded, we are brought up with established pressuppositions (some good, some bad) that the ancient world had no knowlege of. Simply ignorning the litarary nuances and norms of their day, yet still cramming the content into our present concept of literary standards will nessasarily create inerrancy issues. But the errancy then is Presentism – not scripture.

By: Dominic Bnonn Tennant

Dominic Bnonn Tennant — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:19:59 +0000

Hi Glenn—that’s strange. There are no pending comments, and nothing in spam. I wasn’t notified of any comment you made, and I definitely haven’t moderated it away. Maybe you hit the Preview button without realizing that it doesn’t post the comment first time around, and then closed the window?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:12:36 +0000

I replied with a comment under this blog entry yesterday, but it hasn’t appeared yet. I assume that means that it was not approved from moderation. It doesn’t matter now, as the discussion is progressing at talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz

Glenn

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:53:47 +0000

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks for putting this out there. I don’t understand how one could be a Christian apologist yet undermine their own foundation for what they believe. It makes no sense…