Moderator: Moderators
I do not know how you came to this conclusion, since I stated the opposite of this.polonius wrote: RESPONSE: So you are agreeing that not all "fundamentalists" believe that the Bible is fully inspired or "God" breathed?
This is closer to the debate topic in that you are demonstrating that it is not an argument fundamentalists make. Your reasoning here is similar to the argument to the argument described in the opening post. Why you have attributed this argument to fundamentalists is beyond me.polonius wrote: And getting on to a more delicate topic. Jesus died in 30-33 AD. When and by whom was it first reported by any eyewitness that it had occurred. Of course none of the 500 original witnesses or anyone else they told wrote anything about it, even though would have been Romans or Greeks. And none of the Gospel writers report it.
The young earth creationist types, for a start. From Answers In Genesisbjs wrote:Who makes this argument? I have never heard it come from any self-described fundamentalistpolonius wrote: Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.
When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.
RESPONSE:rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 24 by polonius]
Umm...are you asking this question of myself? You do remember I'm an atheist, I hope?
Your OP describes fundamentalist's attitudes towards the Bible, bjs responded by asking who are these fundamentalists as if he thinks such people don't exist, and my response was to point out they do, there are people who describe the original autographs of the Bible to be free from error and to be God's word.
Where in this do you see someone saying that error have been introduced by later copyist? Where is the claim that the original autographs are considerably different from the current scriptures, thereby allowing that the originals are accurate while the current copies are not?rikuoamero wrote:The young earth creationist types, for a start. From Answers In Genesisbjs wrote:Who makes this argument? I have never heard it come from any self-described fundamentalistpolonius wrote: Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.
When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.
"Section 2: Basics
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Matt Slick from CARM says it:bjs wrote:
Where in this do you see someone saying that error have been introduced by later copyist?
RESPONSE: If that is true, then you really can'treally be sure of any scripture, can you?Tcg wrote:Matt Slick from CARM says it:bjs wrote:
Where in this do you see someone saying that error have been introduced by later copyist?
"Inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error. Now, there is a comment worth mentioning here. Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings, not to the copies. In other words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors in them."
https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible
Tcg wrote:Matt Slick from CARM says it:bjs wrote:
Where in this do you see someone saying that error have been introduced by later copyist?
"Inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error. Now, there is a comment worth mentioning here. Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings, not to the copies. In other words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors in them."
https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible
Mistakes like these certainly exist in the copies of the Bible. Given the overwhelming number of copies of the NT that we have scholars, theists and atheists alike, agree that by means of comparison we can reasonable deduce what the original autograph said. To be fair, there is no way to know if Luke made any spelling errors, nor would the existence of spelling errors in the original autograph bother me.Matt Slick wrote: “Nevertheless, following is a list of the types of errors that have crept into the Bible:
Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once.
A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.
Fission - Improperly dividing one word into two words.
Example: "nowhere" into "now here."
Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word.
"Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet."
Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice.
A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.
Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation.
Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.
Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters.
Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."
