Tyrel and Paprika on whether the Bible claims inerrancy

[KingsGambit]

This is a formal debate/discussion between Tyrel and Paprika. Only these two will be allowed to post in this thread. A separate discussion thread will be started for spectator commentary. The topic will be: "Are there good reasons, on balance, to believe that the Scriptures teach themselves to be inerrant?" Tyrel will post first, followed by Paprika. Each poster will get four posts, with word length limits as follows:

Opening statements: 1000 words each.
Rebuttals: 500 words each.
Rebuttals to Rebuttals: 300 words each.
Closing statements: 400 words each.

Each poster will have 48 hours to make each response.

[Tyrel]

aloneteachesdivinely breathedspokeword that comes from the mouth of Goddivinely breathed

without mixture of error, without dross.

teach

[Paprika]

ofsimul iustus et peccatorbut of peace

[Tyrel]

For as the substantial Word of God became like to men in all things, except sin, so the words of God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech in every respect, except error.

all scripturesome good reasons to think that the scriptures teach themselves to be inerrant, and that there are not comparably goodAnswers-In-Genesissensus fideiif and only ifon a par with at least one other (namely, his alternative view). I have spent most of this first rebuttal reviewing the scriptural evidence in favor of the thesis that Scripture teaches the doctrine of inerrancy. There maysome evidence. Thus, what I would invite Paprika to do is to give us comparably goodmore reasonable than not to believe that Scripture teaches inerrancy.

[Paprika]

prima facie

[Tyrel]

Paprika has managed to impress me by offering a really commendable critique in a very short space. This critique consists of three main points: (1) that expressions such as that of Matthew 4:4 do not lend credence to the view that what it means (for scripture) to be divinely breathedin mindwritten Scriptures, and takes them in place of food. It seems to me, therefore, that Jesus is very plausibly treating those written, under the influence of inspiration. There is, thus, no distinction of the kind needed here.

A quick final point with which I will end this rebuttal: the notes in Psalm 12:6, and in Proverbs 30:5, are clearly not about prophesies, but about the laws of Torah. However, if even words about gardening regulations (and such-like) are, according to Scripture, words spoken by God, then what words of Scripture would not be, and why?

[Paprika]

possible

[Tyrel]

inspiration a guarantor of truth? In this debate I have argued that this question can be answered by attending to an analysis of what it means for something to be divinely breathed. I have argued that a careful and responsible approach to Scripture reveals that there are good reasons to believe that Scripture teaches (i) that something is inspired if and only ifdoesdivinely breathed is that it comes from the mouth of God. However, whether the arguments for this first contention are good is besides the question at hand; the question is, are the arguments for it better than the arguments to the contrary? However, we have not heard a positive case for the contrary, so it seems to me that I have made my case as well as could reasonably have been hoped for, and I leave it to you the spectators to decide for yourselves what worth these arguments have.

I will end by thanking Paprika for making this debate so enjoyable.

[Paprika]