I would disagree. There is no greater evidence, as Bahnsen pointed out, than the scriptures themselves. Our Lord Jesus, who referred to the writings and scriptures many times throughout the gospel never called into question the inerrant of the word of God. Yet He referenced the Greek version floating around-the very document some here are saying is in error. In fact, while talking to the crowd, our Lord Jesus most likely recited from the Aramaic version-not the Hebrew or Greek. I'm not sure. However, it wasn't the original Hebrew and He didn't seem to have a problem with "discrepancies". It should also be pointed out that some of the most questionable people of scripture (Noah, Jonah, Daniel, etc), our Lord Jesus talked about as prophets and events such as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as actual occurances.
Nowhere in scripture is there an argument that any of these various translations were considered suspect or in error. Our Lord Jesus, and certainly Paul, was familiar with the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions. This didn't seem to trouble them in saying that "ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable...".
Rather than a "Protestant invention" I would say there is more historical evidence that the Catholic Church came up with this idea to reinforced their dictates and authority. Inerrancy is a biblical concept-not a Protestant invention. I'm not familiar with any early church fathers who questioned the word of God. Bahnsen, Warfield, et al simply took the position our Lord Jesus and Paul took.
You haven't made that clear to me. HOW do you know that Jesus believed the Jonah actually went to Nineveh? He refers to the story without making any comment on its veracity. One can hold either view without destroying inerrancy of Scriptures. The Bible is not the problem, but man's interpretation of it. Jesus HIMSELF CORRECTS Jewish interpretation of said WRITTEN Scriptures over and over again... Interpretation of Scripture is NOT inerrant. God's MESSAGE is inerrant.
Regards
Harley, I think that you misunderstood my point.
Here is the theory of the "original autographs": Once upon a time, God inspired someone (Moses, Ezekiel, Mark, Paul... whoever) to write a book of the Bible. They wrote it down as they were inspired.
This document, the "original autograph," is what is considered by those who follow this theory (primarily developed by Warfield and the other Princeton Reformed theologians) to be inerrant and infallible. These autographs are lost or worn out or whatever. We don't have them and we never will, but under this theory, we can attempt to reconstruct their content as best possible from existing copies of copies. Every copy, under this theory, probably contains errors, but this doesn't hurt the theory of inerrancy, since these copies aren't the original autograph.
"I would disagree. There is no greater evidence, as Bahnsen pointed out, than the scriptures themselves. Our Lord Jesus, who referred to the writings and scriptures many times throughout the gospel never called into question the inerrant of the word of God. Yet He referenced the Greek version floating around-the very document some here are saying is in error. In fact, while talking to the crowd, our Lord Jesus most likely recited from the Aramaic version-not the Hebrew or Greek. I'm not sure. However, it wasn't the original Hebrew and He didn't seem to have a problem with "discrepancies"."
You are here making a very good case why the "original autograph" theory is nonsensical.
"It should also be pointed out that some of the most questionable people of scripture (Noah, Jonah, Daniel, etc), our Lord Jesus talked about as prophets and events such as the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah as actual occurances."
As you know, I completely agree with you on that point. Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, all speak of these things as historical facts. They don't get hung up on exact details in most cases, but they treat them as actual occurances. The concept that we can treat all of these things as "spiritual meaning" only, and dispense with their historicity, is a novelty.
There are many works of the Fathers where they take great care to demonstrate the harmony of the four Gospels, for instance. If they really didn't believe in the historicity of these documents, they wouldn't have bothered. If the theory of "spiritual meaning only" were the understanding of the Church, the Fathers would simply have said so, and wouldn't have gone to the trouble of their careful refutations of those who called the Scriptural accounts into question.
"Nowhere in scripture is there an argument that any of these various translations were considered suspect or in error. Our Lord Jesus, and certainly Paul, was familiar with the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions. This didn't seem to trouble them in saying that "ALL scripture is inspired by God and profitable..."."
Again, you are making the case against the "original autograph" theory.
"Rather than a "Protestant invention" I would say there is more historical evidence that the Catholic Church came up with this idea to reinforced their dictates and authority."
You'll have to explain that one.
"Inerrancy is a biblical concept-not a Protestant invention. I'm not familiar with any early church fathers who questioned the word of God. Bahnsen, Warfield, et al simply took the position our Lord Jesus and Paul took."
We in the Orthodox Church believe that Holy Tradition is inerrant, and that Scripture stands at the pinnacle of that body of Tradition. But ultimately, the ground-root of Tradition is not any given document, but the understanding of the Church. This understanding preceded the first setting of pen to parchment by an Apostle, and it would continue even if every single book in the world were lost. This is because fundamentally, Holy Tradition is the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the life in the Church.