Hello there. Today's bad argument is that used by Biblical Inerrantists. They argue that since the Bible has no errors, contradictions, etc. that it must be the written word of God. Hence, God must exist.
Circular Reasoning
The argument goes like this: "These books were written by dozens of people in different locations in different eras. Since it contains no errors or contradictions, it must be from God."
However, doesn't the Bible claim that God exists in the first place?
If the Bible has no errors and it claims that God exists, then it would follow that God exists. There need be no appeal to dozens of people in different locations who wrote the book. In order to claim that "The bible has no errors" one must assume that the statement that "God exists" is not in error. So, to use the fact that the bible has no errors to conclude that God exists is to use circular reasoning. One must presuppose God exists in order for the argument to get off the ground.
So, any argument that "the bible has no errors" to conclude that "God exists" is question-begging.
Lack of Contradiction is not so Spectacular
Even if it was proven that there were no contradictions in the Bible, would that really matter? Well maybe if they were randomly choosen books that were thrown together into one. However, they were not. The Council of Nicea in around A.D. 300 (something like that) decided what books would be in it. People figured out what books would be in it by vote. So, they probably had read them before and therefore, any large doctrinal disuptes could be taken care of. So, even if the Inerrantist were to prove that the Bible has no contradictions, that would be easy to account for given the fact that the books were chosen to be in the Bible. If they contradicted each other to a large degree, then they probably wouldn't have chosen them to be in the Bible in the first place.
Conclusion
Biblical Inerrancy is a belief that is difficult to uphold. There are many bad arguments that they use in defense of their position. I don't really care too much about this topic either. Even if there were some errors in the Bible, that wouldn't prove Christianity false. At most, it would just prove that God didn't write those parts.
Posts
Happy Hour
1 hour ago
2 comments:
Usually the claim is infalliability(sp?) but not inerrant. Meaning doctrinal integrity rather than every grammar/detail perfection. I have heard errancy actually supports their point. For example in the case of the 4 gospels not having exactly the same story, if they were exactly the same, then one would be suspicious that they all got together to cook up this grand scheme to trick people. Rather it shows they all separately wrote what they remembered from their own perspectives which all support the same story.
-
But even if it were screened, it is one freaking huge book. Don't you think it would be highly improbable for everything to be doctrinally sound? Especially since the span is from OT Moses all the way to NT Paul.
-
I agree it proves nothing either way, but if the bible says God exists, he wrote this, and this is infalliable then logically what the bible says about God existing is possible. I dont think it is circular reasoning as i understand it because the bible itself says it is "god-breathed". But im no logic professor.
I'm no bible scholar either, but i try. ;)
As far as infalliability, I realize that Christians usually don't claim inerrancy. I was only pointing out that some do. As far as the 4 gospels not having the exactly same stories, I think it's well received by scholars that the 4 gospels are not entirely independent sources. It seems they borrowed from each other in writing. Sure, the later ones also added new things which may be true or false. However, there are a lot of similarities and most scholars believe that Mark was used to write other gospels. Or at least that they all have a similar source. I'm no Bible scholar either so I can't say too much on the subject.
Well, saying the Bible is doctrinally sound assumes that God exists in the first place. Otherwise, if God didn't exist, then the Bible wouldn't be doctrinally sound. So, to prove the Bible was doctrinally sound, you would have to first prove that God existed. So, one can't say that the Bible is doctrinally sound to show God exists.
Also, the Bible doesn't say that the Bible is God-breathed because the Bible wasn't composed until after it was written. I know of a verse in the NT that says something along the lines of all scripture being inspired by God. However, what does "all scripture" mean? Most likely, the writer just meant the OT and whatever other NT writings he knew of at the time. It is doubtful he meant "all the books that will end up being collected into a book called The Bible."
As far as your last point, if God wrote the Bible, then of course God must exist. So the argument is still question begging when you say, "if the bible says God exists, he wrote this ..." I would agree however that God's existence is possible, just not probable.
Post a Comment