Biblical Inerrancy

[American Deist]

Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God." However, that statement raises some issues. I'd like to cover them one at a time.

1. Which translation of the Bible are they referring to? Some Bibles are not translated as well as others, especially when you move down to dynamic or paraphrased versions. Are they referring to the Hebrew and Greek, or are they referring to English? If they are referring to English translations, then they are missing the cultural and time period idioms.

2. The Autographs, which were the original works of both the OT and the NT, have long been lost or destroyed. The OT Autographs went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed the temples in Jerusalem in 587 BCE. The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!

3. Why are there so many different translations? The answer is: copyright laws. Publishing houses have copyrights on their translations, and it is often cheaper for another company to do their own translation instead of paying royalties. Since plagiarism has to be avoided, that means words and formatting have to be different.

4. There are some Christian sects that wrote their own version of the Bible. The problem with many of those sects is that the authors (I refuse to say translators) were NOT fluent with Hebrew or Greek, and couldn't read those languages if they tried. Instead, they use the "Holy Spirit-as-guide" excuse in order to avoid being questioned about their scholarship. That does not stop theologians from pointing out the obvious errors of those translations.

The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit, and gets hammered into the masses so hard that many accept it as truth. Unfortunately, those people have been brainwashed by repetition.

[Brother P]

[Replying to post 12 by American Deist]

As a science textbook.. it's outdated.
It's historic science... Like books on geocentrism.

As POETRY.. well.. poetry never goes out of date.
It's not wrong, it's not right.. poetry is supposed to be ART, and simply APPRECIATED.

I am forming some theories lately.

1. Bible = Poetry
2. Bible = Ancient science

That's an interesting idea, not sure it'll catch on any time soon though

The bible inerrancy camp have plenty of biblical proof texts showing it's more than just "art". A few examples come to mind:

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Of course, this is not proof in any way (it's circular), however, it does show that the bible was intended as a guidebook for living, not something to just "hang on the wall" and admire as art. I get where you're coming from though.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 41 by Brother P]

That's an interesting idea, not sure it'll catch on any time soon though

Thanks.

I'm really just trying it out.

I think it has legs, though.
I really do see religious ideas as aesthetic, poetry, metaphor, rhetoric.

We are talking about subjective truths, after all.
If the idea is at all controversial, then we have ourselves a debate. Right on !!

If there is enough interest, I will for sure open a new thread.
I might do anyway...

I always love it when people challenge me.

The bible inerrancy camp have plenty of biblical proof texts showing it's more than just "art". A few examples come to mind:

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That's a great claim, isn't it?
Thanks for that.

I take the passage to be metaphoric, hyperbole, rhetorical, poetic. Yeah the Bible says that the Bible is great, doesn't it?

So, when I criticize Bible worshipers for using their Bible to prove that their Bible is true.. I can point to that bit. Excellent. I learn something new every day.

ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL?.. of course, that's hyperbole ( another poetic or rhetorical trick )

I don't think that all the "begets" in the Bible are very useful at all.. not to ME, in any case.
But if I were a dedicated teacher.. and wanted to only use the Bible.. I maybe could think of a way to use "all of the Bible" that way. It's at least possible.

In fact, I find many many parts of the Bible perfectly USELESS to my life.
And some parts of the Bible, if I were to be a follower, would be disastrous.

I think that, like in art, the "usefulness" that the passage is referring to is in the eye of the beholder. Like the usefulness of the Mona Lisa. Some people think that it's VERY useful, indeed.

Meh.. depends on the person.

You should ask my brother in law.. he hates art..
He thinks it's all a waste of good money. He would sneer at the Mona Lisa.

Bless him.

Some people sneer at the Bible.. bless them, too.

Of course, this is not proof in any way (it's circular), however, it does show that the bible was intended as a guidebook for living, not something to just "hang on the wall" and admire as art. I get where you're coming from though.

Well, a lot of people seem to "admire" and "appreciate" the Bible verses, and that, for all kinds of reasons. As an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic, I do admire and appreciate the poetry.

The ideas? The morality?
Not so much.
I find most Biblical ideas and morality obnoxious and horrific.
Quite barbaric and outdated when it's not just plain wrong.

Sure, poetry might be "intended" for something ... who knows, though, right?
Can we talk to the actual authors to KNOW their intentions?

I think NOT.

I would say that they did their very best.

What I do know is that we have an old text, like the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita and so on, and so on ... what we MAKE of those lovely stories ... is very much up to us. To each and every individual.

Do we have OBJECTIVE truth in art? ... No, not really.

My thesis is that the Bible should be considered as a work of art...
It IS very poetic, you have to at least admit that.

Poetry.. is poetry.. that's my idea.
Is poetry supposed to be FACTUAL?..... I think not.

Can we gleam something out of poetry?
YES. For sure.

But that's subjective, not objective.
That WILL depend on the individual.

________________

FOR THE RECORD:

I find lots of "truth" in the Mona Lisa

_________________

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 36 by American Deist]

Yes, but it has to be granted that terms such as "religion" and "philosophy" have more than one meaning. And often, the two interpenetrate, interact, with one another, as in the case of theology, which I view as at the crossroads of philosophy and religion.
And it does seem, at least to me, that if Deism lacks all those things that you mention, then I have some questions about how well it can meet human needs. For example, I think most humans seek an interaction with God. That's why we have religions. An aloof God that hardly ever intervenes won't do. What's the purpose of having a God if that God does absolutely nothing, simply has his or her back turned to the world?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 40 by American Deist]

Good point. We have no idea what the "originals" were like, or if we have anything near the "originals." Some scholars feel there could have been up to 40 gospels originally circulating. Certainly, the great discovery of gnostic gospels does support that point. Hence, what we do have is just a small sampling of what might have been originally the case. Matthew and Luke, for example, seem to have used much of Mark. But also have additional material. If they borrowed from Mark, they probably also borrowed form an additional original source, Q, which we have yet to find. I hold with the Higher Criticism and therefore believe there were at least four written sources for the Pentateuch, but we have none of these original sources. If you take the Genesis account of creation, we have two conflicting sources fused or butt edited together. That can be seen in the difference in literary style between Gen. 1 and 2 and also the story line. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. And there are also all kinds of contradictions and discrepancies among the gospels. We have nothing original to go on to "correct" these contradictions.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 41 by Brother P]

Yes, but exactly what does 2 Timothy define as "Scripture"? Does this include the Apocrypha? Also, the fact all Scripture is useful in teaching does not mean it is necessarily inerrant. Textbooks are useful for teaching. But I don't know any that are "inerrant."

[Brother P]

[Replying to post 41 by Brother P]

That's an interesting idea, not sure it'll catch on any time soon though

Thanks.

I'm really just trying it out.

I think it has legs, though.
I really do see religious ideas as aesthetic, poetry, metaphor, rhetoric.

We are talking about subjective truths, after all.
If the idea is at all controversial, then we have ourselves a debate. Right on !!

If there is enough interest, I will for sure open a new thread.
I might do anyway...

I always love it when people challenge me.

The bible inerrancy camp have plenty of biblical proof texts showing it's more than just "art". A few examples come to mind:

(2 Timothy 3:16, 17) All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That's a great claim, isn't it?
Thanks for that.

I take the passage to be metaphoric, hyperbole, rhetorical, poetic. Yeah the Bible says that the Bible is great, doesn't it?

So, when I criticize Bible worshipers for using their Bible to prove that their Bible is true.. I can point to that bit. Excellent. I learn something new every day.

ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL?.. of course, that's hyperbole ( another poetic or rhetorical trick )

I don't think that all the "begets" in the Bible are very useful at all.. not to ME, in any case.
But if I were a dedicated teacher.. and wanted to only use the Bible.. I maybe could think of a way to use "all of the Bible" that way. It's at least possible.

In fact, I find many many parts of the Bible perfectly USELESS to my life.
And some parts of the Bible, if I were to be a follower, would be disastrous.

I think that, like in art, the "usefulness" that the passage is referring to is in the eye of the beholder. Like the usefulness of the Mona Lisa. Some people think that it's VERY useful, indeed.

Meh.. depends on the person.

You should ask my brother in law.. he hates art..
He thinks it's all a waste of good money. He would sneer at the Mona Lisa.

Bless him.

Some people sneer at the Bible.. bless them, too.

Of course, this is not proof in any way (it's circular), however, it does show that the bible was intended as a guidebook for living, not something to just "hang on the wall" and admire as art. I get where you're coming from though.

Well, a lot of people seem to "admire" and "appreciate" the Bible verses, and that, for all kinds of reasons. As an agnostic, an atheist and a skeptic, I do admire and appreciate the poetry.

The ideas? The morality?
Not so much.
I find most Biblical ideas and morality obnoxious and horrific.
Quite barbaric and outdated when it's not just plain wrong.

Sure, poetry might be "intended" for something ... who knows, though, right?
Can we talk to the actual authors to KNOW their intentions?

I think NOT.

I would say that they did their very best.

What I do know is that we have an old text, like the Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita and so on, and so on ... what we MAKE of those lovely stories ... is very much up to us. To each and every individual.

Do we have OBJECTIVE truth in art? ... No, not really.

My thesis is that the Bible should be considered as a work of art...
It IS very poetic, you have to at least admit that.

Poetry.. is poetry.. that's my idea.
Is poetry supposed to be FACTUAL?..... I think not.

Can we gleam something out of poetry?
YES. For sure.

But that's subjective, not objective.
That WILL depend on the individual.

________________

FOR THE RECORD:

I find lots of "truth" in the Mona Lisa

_________________

Thanks for that! I'd definitely be interested in the thread if you started a new one on that topic - it's great to see this kind of angle, especially in an atheist as it shows some level of respect for "sacred texts" even though it isn't seen as divine.

The post you just made there may be a good starting point, and I'll probably question a few things. For the record, I prefer to play devils advocate rather than outright challenge since I prefer to keep an open mind, so any comments made would just be "thinking out loud" and seeing where it goes.

[historia]

Many Christian denominations will have in their statements of faith something to the effect of "We believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God."

Although this is generally true, I would also point out that there is today -- and has been throughout history -- a diversity of views among conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics on what "inerrancy" or "infallability" actually entails.

Which translation of the Bible are they referring to?

None. "Inerrancy," as that term is generally understood by conservative Protestants -- in, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy -- refers to inerrancy of the original writings.

The point is, how can anyone claim that the modern Bible is inerrant when you don't have the original writings to compare to? You can't!

Even though we may not have the autographs of the Bible, and therefore cannot be absolutely certain what the original text said, I see no reason to doubt that the modern, critical New Testament text that we possess today (i.e., the NA27/UBS4) is close to the original text.

The point is that biblical inerrancy is not something that can be proven. It is a belief without merit

Most of the beliefs we hold cannot be "proven" in some absolute sense, and therefore can only be affirmed with varying degrees of certainty. So it seems to me that objection, in itself, is insufficient to claim any concept is "without merit."

[JehovahsWitness]

I would also point out that there is today -- and has been throughout history -- a diversity of views among conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics on what "inerrancy" or "infallability" actually entails.

Good point. As "inspired of God", there are a wide variety of different ideas as to what this actually means in terms of content.


Jehovah's Witness official statement on the subject reads as follows. The word "inerrant" is not included.

Bible. We recognize the Bible as God’s inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament� and the “New Testament.� Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built “their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.�
While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.


JW






source: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... s-beliefs/

FURTHER READING
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... ed-of-god/

What evidence is there that the bible is the word of God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p972418

Are there errors in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p356827

Can you trust the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1059125#p1059125

Why should I believe the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=338427#p338427

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

- inerrancy

[American Deist]

None. "Inerrancy," as that term is generally understood by conservative Protestants -- in, for example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy -- refers to inerrancy of the original writings.

Yet those same churches/denominations don't state that. They have their SoF and then preach from their preferred translation. That is a deceptive practice.

Even though we may not have the autographs of the Bible, and therefore cannot be absolutely certain what the original text said, I see no reason to doubt that the modern, critical New Testament text that we possess today (i.e., the NA27/UBS4) is close to the original text.

The simple fact that humans make mistakes all the time is enough reason to believe that the Bible is no where near what the Autographs said. There is an experiment that is done in psychology classes where a group has to repeat a sentence. The instructor will write it down and show it to the first person. That person then has to whisper it verbatim to the next. This continues until it goes all the way around the room. The last person writes down what they heard and then the two writings are compared. They are ALWAYS different. Now, take that phenomenon and spread it out over thousands of years, and translate the message across languages.

Most of the beliefs we hold cannot be "proven" in some absolute sense...

Then religion should stop preaching like it is absolute.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 43 by hoghead1]



[center]
Deism just wont do for some theists
[/center]

And it does seem, at least to me, that if Deism lacks all those things that you mention, then I have some questions about how well it can meet human needs.

It may seem that way to you.
I think that deists might be very well "met", indeed.

For example, I think most humans seek an interaction with God.

Who cares about "most" people?
When it comes to believing something, I believe what I do.. not what others do.

Perhaps the ones that are not in this group, don't seek it.
Maybe that's why they are comfortable with deism.

As an outsider to deism or theism, I don't seek either.

That's why we have religions.

That's an incredible hasty generalization.
The phenomenon called "religion" is extremely complex. There are many hypothesized "causes".

Singling one possible cause to the exclusion of all others is... a mistaken bit of reasoning.

An aloof God that hardly ever intervenes won't do.

Looks to me that it won't do for you.
Maybe that's why you are a theist.

What's the purpose of having a God if that God does absolutely nothing, simply has his or her back turned to the world?

It now seems that God has to fit in with your idea of a "purpose". Apparently, if a concept doesn't fit into your frame, it doesn't exist.

Sorry, these ideas of yours have not been very well thought out.