Rethinking Inerrancy so as to Take Account of All the Errors in the Bible:
Hopeful Theism used to be an agnostic, however these days he seems to have converted to some sort of High-Church Christianity; possibly Roman Catholicism. I cannot understand this conversion. I engaged with him a number of times in his comments section. He said that he remains “critical” of apologetics, and yet here he is allowing Mike Licona to redefine ‘inerrancy’, in an Orwellian fashion, without any pushback.
Inerrancy must be defined in dishonest post-hoc ways because the Bible is littered with errors. It is difficult to imagine a book more erroneous than the Bible. Thus, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) defines only the original manuscripts as inerrant. These original manuscripts certainly don't exist today, and the late great Hector Avalos (–) would have argued that they never existed. Avalos would employ the analogy of his own College Lectures so as to disprove the idea that a discrete set of “original manuscripts” existed. Which version of a hypothetical lecture by Avalos would have been the “original” one? His first draft? An edited and corrected version? If Avalos should depart from his script whilst giving his lecture and ex-temporise, then would the transcript of an audio recording of this lecture then be the “original” version of this lecture? Similarly with books of the Bible. As regards the composition of the books of the Bible, in all likelihood, there would have been a period of open textuality; a period of correction and redaction; a period of insertions and deletions; in which numerous versions of the “original” Biblical Book existed simultaneously.
Avalos discusses the topic of inerrancy, and the concept of there being “original manuscripts” in his The End of Biblical Studies ().