Had this discussion with a guy. it got weird cus he would not address the question and just kept spouting bible verses at me and said i did not believe. Here is my conundrum ( i love that word, my grandpa uses it all the time) . The term inerrant is a really new term. It can be traced back to the 1970's. If you believe (as i do ) that the scriptures were God inspired, meaning that God spoke (not necessarily audibly ) to people to inspire them to write the scriptures, and that he has reserved them throughout the times, why do they not stand on thier own? Since the beginning of the time they were written it has always been a point of faith. Either you believe it or you dont. So why now, do many Christians make a statement that the scriptures are inerrant ,meaning they have no errors in the original manuscripts, when we dont have any original manuscripts in the first place? I believe in the scriptures, i just object when people make up terms that have no real meaning and are not needed. it makes us look like we dont have faith in the scriptures and somehow we have to make emphatic statements that cant be backed in evidence. To paraphrase Soren Kierkegaard, if you have factual evidence it does not require faith. thoughts?
↧