Inerrant Word of God or Book of Best Guesses?

The debate starts with Wilson getting strait to the crux: can we trust god when he said he would protect every word and pen stroke? If Nestle Aland is the best source for new bibles, then the answer is no and the church has not had access to a reliable bible ever. So, he argues that Nestle Arland cannot be the best source for Christians because God explicitly promised to protect the word for his people. It is a faith based argument, and it is irrefutable in a Christian milieu.

White argues for Nestle Aland, and so, he cannot counter Wilson’s core argument. This is simply because Nestle Aland is the product of secular scholars cobbling together a ‘best guess’ bible that gets a ‘new and improved’ version every couple of years. The bibles the churches have been using for 1600 years are inferior and filled with mistakes, redactions, and interpolations. White says in the debate, we have to look at the text the way we do any other ancient text. How one maintains faith with the above view, I do not know.

Who you think will have won the debate will depend on whether you have faith and your view of inerrancy. I believe it is the bedrock of Christianity, and dropping biblical authority is the last rung on the ladder to atheism. Wilson won this debate, but White’s side has won the culture.

Should you listen? Probably not. White will push people to atheism, and if you are a believer, there isn't much here to strengthen faith.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!