In reality the Bible never claims to be inerrant, never claims to be the literal word of God - excepting sections which claim to report a message delivered to a human, or words attribute to God in stories. The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine - but one which is held to dictate to God.
Premise 1. The bible never claims inerrancy.
(How would that be possible anyway, since each book was individually written before the biblical cannon? Your premise basically states that Ayrton Senna, at the age of 10, didn't claim to be an F1 driver) But as we know, the cannon was later put together. It is a moot point. A spiritual understanding of God's word is received by those who receive spiritual revelation. You don't accept such scriptures, therefore you are the one to be against the bible, because you believe they hold no truth.
Premise 2. "The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine" ( This wouldn't follow anyway, but you would still have to prove your case, you are saying that it can't be inerrant based on human reasons you have, and because of omission. These are feeble premises, and a "human doctrine" would be that of
human reason. A human doctrine would be held by those that don't accept that Christ rose from the dead, but you are saying that because we accept these things as read, we are "anti-biblical". My response to that is; LoL!
"The doctrine holding otherwise is therefore a human doctrine"
That doesn't follow anyway. You are simply
stating a cynical motive, not proving one. And you are also stating things opposite to the truth. You full well know that people that don't believe in the bible, are anti-biblical, in that they reject it, but those that believe it, are biblical Christians. You are stating that black is white and white is black.
This conclusion also assumes the correctness of a premise which you didn't state, your premise would have been;
Pauls' unstated premise writes:
"If the bible omits inerrancy, THEN people, namely Christians, have a motive to establish a doctrine not based on the biblical text"
The bible couldn't have claimed inerrancy, as to contain such a statement at the stage when the scriptures were individual, wouldn't be expected, and to jump to the conclusion that we have a "human" motive of putting words in God's mouth, is just silly. Only people that squeeze millions of evolutionary years into the bible, have human motives. Notice they didn't try and squeeze steady-state into the bible, but it wouldn't surprise me if, actually, some people did try!
You are basically saying that a biblical position is unbiblical, and that people that take a biblical position, are anti-biblical, and want to put words into the bible that aren't there, because they accept the plain reading of the bible. An argument that holds no water, and doesn't even make sense.
Those that accept the bible, know that there is a spiritual element which the natural mind can't understand, to it. This is why the bible says that the natural man can't understand spiritual things.
The scripture itself disqualifies your conclusions because it tells us that the natural man can't "get there" so to speak, by natural intellect. The scriptures are spiritual matters, they themselves claim to be, and it tells us that those who believe, "have the mind of Christ".
Sorry Paul, but your argument is
BACKWARDS.
The only motive we have, is to accept God's word, understand it on a spiritual level, as it says we have been given the ability to do.
Those that live to squash things in there, like gay-sex and evolution, and animal sex, they want to indulge, are motivated by
human motives and governed by
human reason.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.