Inerrant or Not?

[POI]

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be. I'm not a fundamentalist, and fundamentalism is a fairly recent faction in Christendom. They can defend their own position.

Seems this would be a settled topic among believers by now. And yet, for as many Christians as I engage, some claim inerrancy, while some do not. Can we settle this topic once and for all?

For debate: Is the Bible inerrant or not? And how exactly do we know?

To add more concise substance, I'm not a believer. The question is posed to ask if the writers of the Bible intended for their given writings to be taken literally and accurately? Can we know?

[POI]

Okay, what's the conclusion then? Which parts are, and which parts are not?

Before continuing, how are you defining the Bible and inerrant?

At this point, I'll just take a running tally. So far, some are claiming inerrancy. And maybe others are not. I really have no skin in the game myself, but would at least really like to know if the authors meant for the said storylines to be taken as literal, as written, or not? We can start with Genesis. Are the stories expressed in Genesis meant to be taken literally?

You didn't answer my question. If you're going to ask if the Bible inerrant or not, then we need to know what you mean by the Bible and being inerrant. Or at least what you think Christians mean by the Bible and being inerrant.

I did answer. We can start with Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible. Are the stories in Genesis meant be taken literally, or not? And once we get this nailed down, are the storylines supposed to be 100% accurate, as written?

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Jiu jitsu apologetics has lots of rules: No punching, no kicking, no elbows, no pushing, no headlocks, no leg locks, no arm bars, no wedgies, ...

Jordan Peterson will make you define the word the . So be grateful he's not here.

Eventually, you'll be arguing with the Ghost of Augustine: If I see a discrepancy, I assume either the manuscript is in error or I that am in error.

I'd rather argue with Augustine then Jordan Peterson though.

[Tcg]

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be. I'm not a fundamentalist, and fundamentalism is a fairly recent faction in Christendom. They can defend their own position.

Seems this would be a settled topic among believers by now. And yet, for as many Christians as I engage, some claim inerrancy, while some do not. Can we settle this topic once and for all?

For debate: Is the Bible inerrant or not? And how exactly do we know?

To add more concise substance, I'm not a believer. The question is posed to ask if the writers of the Bible intended for their given writings to be taken literally? Can we know?

Can we know that the Bible inerrant or not? My answer, biblically, is yes, we can know. i believe that the Bible claims to be inerrant. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version:
"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
It’s breathed by God, how can it contain error? Of course, not everything is meant to be taken literally because there is also poetry, parables, etc. But the Bible is meant to be useful, to equip us. I think 'error' would not help that purpose.

2 Peter 1:20-21
New International Version
"20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Jesus Himself saying in Matthew 5:18, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” He is referring to the Old Testament, basically saying it was precise, down to the smallest detail, until their purpose is fulfilled. And who write these books? Moses, David, Solomon and others. Are they human? Yes, but they are inspired by God's divine will.

Moderator Intervention

A reminder that in this subforum, the Bible is not considered authoritative. From the C&A Guidelines:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.


To clarify, if one were to quote from Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" for instance, that would carry as much weight as a quote from the Bible. Both quotes would need additional support external to each book.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Hfighter30]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]

I understand just now in this subforum, using Bible verse as proof is not considered valid, because it needed external support, so it just like any quotes from any other book. Sorry if my post come across as assuming the Bible's authority in a context where it is not agreed. English is not my first languange and i have seen the rules but it seems i still dont understand it fully. My intention writing that verses was just to explain the biblical basis for the belief in inerrancy but it seems i was not following the rulus. Now when dicussing topic in this subforum, I will focus more on historical or literary to support my arguments. Thanks for pointing out

[Verily]

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be. I'm not a fundamentalist, and fundamentalism is a fairly recent faction in Christendom. They can defend their own position.

Seems this would be a settled topic among believers by now. And yet, for as many Christians as I engage, some claim inerrancy, while some do not. Can we settle this topic once and for all?

For debate: Is the Bible inerrant or not?

I'm a Christian who believes in inerrancy. So I'll attempt to affirm that in our exhanges.

And how exactly do we know?

Jesus believed the entire Old Testament, the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms were fulfilled through him, Luke 24:44. He believed every word of God, Matthew 4:4. He believed his apostles would be empowered by God to deliver the word of God to the world John 17:14-20. Whether the Bible is qualitatively inerrant, we'll be hammering that out soon enough, I'm sure.

To add more concise substance, I'm not a believer. The question is posed to ask if the writers of the Bible intended for their given writings to be taken literally?

Depends on context. When Paul said, put on the Lord Christ, Romans 13:14, he obviously didn't intend it to be taken literally. When Paul said, bring me my cloak that I left at Troas, 2 Timothy 4:13, he obviously didn't mean it metaphorically.

Can we know?

Yes, context, and a degree of mental acumen, determines when something is meant to be taken literally or metaphorically.

[otseng]

You didn't answer my question. If you're going to ask if the Bible inerrant or not, then we need to know what you mean by the Bible and being inerrant. Or at least what you think Christians mean by the Bible and being inerrant.

I did answer. We can start with Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible. Are the stories in Genesis meant be taken literally, or not? And once we get this nailed down, are the storylines supposed to be 100% accurate, as written?

I'm asking for dictionary definitions of what is Bible and what is inerrancy. And what does taking something literal or not have to do with inerrancy? Just because something is literal or not literal has no bearing if it's errant or inerrant.

[POI]

You didn't answer my question. If you're going to ask if the Bible inerrant or not, then we need to know what you mean by the Bible and being inerrant. Or at least what you think Christians mean by the Bible and being inerrant.

I did answer. We can start with Genesis, which is the first book of the Bible. Are the stories in Genesis meant be taken literally, or not? And once we get this nailed down, are the storylines supposed to be 100% accurate, as written?

I'm asking for dictionary definitions of what is Bible and what is inerrancy. And what does taking something literal or not have to do with inerrancy? Just because something is literal or not literal has no bearing if it's errant or inerrant.

Otseng, I already know your position. You made an entire thread labeled "how can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" I do not need to provide you with any 'dictionary definition(s).' Thus far, I'm asking folks if it is or isn't inerrant. You state it is not. Once enough people respond, we can go from there. Thanks...

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Inerrancy is an argument no Christian can ever win. I mean heck, we do not even know if the ending of Mark was original to the text. Moreover, we all know for a fact that we have variances between manuscripts which alone demonstrates what we now have cannot possibly be inerrant. The one thing which really blows my mind is when I have this debate with other Christians and they come to realize that what we now have in our hands cannot possibly be inerrant, these folks will respond with the argument that "the originals were without error." This argument blows my mind because we do not even have the originals to even be able to make such an argument, on top of the fact even if the originals were inerrant, what good would that do us today?

Christians are shooting themselves in the foot by attempting to argue for inerrancy. Inerrancy is an argument for weak minded Christians. In other words, these Christians must and have to believe the Bible is without error, because if the Bible were to be demonstrated to contain error, their whole belief would be shattered. This is exactly why the argument is for weak minded folk. The debate is not whether the Bible is inerrant, but rather if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the reports contained in the NT concerning the resurrection. In other words, our argument as Christians should be, Christ raised from the dead, with the facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection. Because you see, if we win the argument of Christ raised from the dead, then there would be no need in attempting to defend the inerrancy of the Bible.

My point is, I do not have to be convinced that what the author of Luke and Acts recorded was inerrant, in order to know if there would be reasons to believe the reports. We are wasting our time on arguments which do not matter in the least, while ignoring the only argument which matters which is Christ raised from the dead, which would put to rest all other arguments.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #13]

I understand just now in this subforum, using Bible verse as proof is not considered valid, because it needed external support, so it just like any quotes from any other book. Sorry if my post come across as assuming the Bible's authority in a context where it is not agreed. English is not my first languange and i have seen the rules but it seems i still dont understand it fully. My intention writing that verses was just to explain the biblical basis for the belief in inerrancy but it seems i was not following the rulus. Now when dicussing topic in this subforum, I will focus more on historical or literary to support my arguments. Thanks for pointing out

You're doing just fine and welcome to the forum, Hfighter30. Just an additional clarification. Our rules here are universal in that they apply to all subforums in the site. The guidelines apply strictly to a specific subforum in this case C&A. You've not violated either.

Our rules are primarily to serve our overarching goal of providing a venue to discuss issues civilly. Based on the spirit you've displayed, I suspect you'll have no problem in that area.


Tcg

[POI]

My point is, I do not have to be convinced that what the author of Luke and Acts recorded was inerrant, in order to know if there would be reasons to believe the reports. We are wasting our time on arguments which do not matter in the least, while ignoring the only argument which matters which is Christ raised from the dead, which would put to rest all other arguments.

I thanked you for answering the question. And now to address this part, which has nothing to do with the thread. You strike me as a fellow who might adhere to a 'minimal facts' Christian approach. (i.e.):

The minimal facts approach is a method of establishing the truth of Jesus' resurrection based on a few key facts. It's based on the idea that these facts are so well-attested that almost all scholars agree on them.

How does the minimal facts approach work?

It only considers facts that have a lot of evidence in their favor.
It considers facts that are universally or nearly universally agreed upon by scholars and historians.
It considers facts that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject.