Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

[otseng]

Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy.

As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is not up for debate.

[2timothy316]

I think first we need to agree on some terms.

inerrant: incapable of being wrong
errant: erring or straying from the proper course or standards
authoritative: able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
errors: a mistake
scripture: sacred writings

This sentence has an errror in it, but no less understandable.

In my study of the Bible I have found that it's message is completely reliable despite errors in it's writing. I have found no error in the Bible that changes it's message. That includes additions that some have tried to add to make the Bible bias towards their dogma. Good examples are hellfire and the trinity. Even with those added changes the message of the Bible doesn't change.

What is errant are people's interpretations. The Bible, which I see as the Word of God, is the perfection and we as imperfect people are the ones that get it wrong. This happens when we rely or ourselves or others for understanding God.

Peter said of Paul's writings and other scriptures of the Bible, "However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

So how can we tell when a hard to understand scripture is being twisted and what is really being understood due to Holy Spirit? That starts with one huge step, becoming humble. The second step is being patient and get ready to look at things from Jehovah God's point of view the best you can. Do not be stumbled by something we read and do not jump to a conclusion as to why God allowed or didn't allow something. The only thing I have found that can give us the true answer, is the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible. We can make a mistake in interpreting the Bible and be fine as long as we are humble enough to correct it when something else comes to our attention. However, the Bible is clear about those that twist scripture with intent to fit their dogma.

As for the OP question. Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?
Absolutely! Because if it's message is wrong then that makes God incompetent. Meaning that while He can make a whole universe, yet making a book of truth is beyond His reach? If it is out of God's reach, then why believe there is a perfect God at all?

[Divine Insight]

Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative?

For me yes. After all, if it contains errors or falsehoods, then how can it be authoritative?

Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

For me, the answer is definitely no.

Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy.

I see four possible sources of error: IMHO the Biblical canon exhibits all four of these types of errors.

1. Natural Fallacies:

If it states things that can be shown to be false with respect to the real world.

Two examples for me would be the story of the fall from grace and the story of the great flood.

2. Self-contradictions:

If it contains stories that include obvious self-contradictions.

There are many examples along these lines, but I think the story of the Canaanites is one of the most profound examples of this.

3. Inconsistent tales:

If it contains tales told by different authors that make different claims about what supposedly happened.

Again, there are many examples, but one that stands out for me in the NT is the story of what Judas supposedly did with his reward money and how he supposedly died.

4. Obvious false prophesies or proclamations:

If it contains claims that can be demonstrated to be clearly false.

Again, lots of examples, but one that is quite profound is in the last chapter of Mark where Jesus supposedly decrees that those who follow him will be able to drink any deadly think and it won't harm them and they will be able to place their hands on the sick and heal them. There's never been anyone in history who could do these things. So clearly this decree was false.

As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is not up for debate.

How are we supposed to have a meaningful debate about whether or not the Bible is errant if we need to assume that the Bible is authoritative?

Also why should we assume that the Bible is authoritative when we know from error type #4 above, that there are no humans who can drink any deadly thing and it won't harm them, and there are no humans who can lay their hands on the sick and heal them?

It would seem to me that we should be assuming precisely the opposite until we have good reason to suspect otherwise.

[Elijah John]

Yes, the Bible can be imperfect, just as our leaders can be, and still be authoritative. Authoritative in that it is the main source of Spiritual inspiration for Christians and Jews.

Especially now that we are not under jurisdiction of a theocracy, we cannot go anymore by the "letter of the (Biblical) law." But we can still look to the Good Book for Wisdom, and Spiritual guidance and inspiration. In that sense, it is still authoritative.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by otseng]

Yes, it has to be. Otherwise it is essentially the equivalent of just a collection of human ideas untrustworthy, when it comes to the big questions that lay beyond the realms of human experience.


JW


Can the bible be a mixture of diamonds and dung?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 422#979422

[Eloi]

[Replying to Elijah John]

How can be imperfect something inspired by the spirit of God?

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

If the Bible contains errors, then it would be impossible to know the truth and anyone could have permission to interpret it any way they want. The Bible is not a violin to play any piece of music, the Bible is the song God made to be written for us to learn.

John 17:17 Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.

Even angels want to listen into that divine song, to learn from what it says, since we all want to learn from God:

1 Pet. 1:10 Concerning this very salvation a diligent inquiry and a careful search were made by the prophets who prophesied about the undeserved kindness meant for YOU. 11 They kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of [season] the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ when it was bearing witness beforehand about the sufferings for Christ and about the glories to follow these. 12 It was revealed to them that, not to themselves, but to YOU, they were ministering the things that have now been announced to YOU through those who have declared the good news to YOU with holy spirit sent forth from heaven. Into these very things angels are desiring to peer.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, the Bible can be imperfect, just as our leaders can be, and still be authoritative. In that it is the main source of Spiritual inspiration for Christians and Jews.

Why would you lower a God to the fallible standard of men?

Also, our leaders are not making laws or commandments that will supposedly have an effect on our eternal fate. So if our leaders made bad laws or commandments it's no big deal. Also, we don't even need to do as our leaders say. All we need to do is make sure they don't find out that we aren't doing as they say.

None of this can be applied to an omniscient God who's directives and commandments cannot be ignored, nor hidden from God's knowledge.

So the very moment you reduce you God to being no more authoritative than our leaders, all you have done is decree that your God isn't any different from flawed mortal men.

I most certainly hope that any God that might exist is better than Donald Trump. And let's not forget Adolf Hitler too! He too was a leader who was in authority.

I honestly don't understand how you can compare a supposed God with mere mortal leaders. There's no way that I could respect that kind of analogy.

[otseng]

Though there might be more, I could only find two Christian groups that clearly state they believe in Biblical inerrancy without any qualifications - the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. It appears what they mean by the Bible is a Bible that you can hold in your hands (any English translation of the Bible). They don't seem to qualify it by saying any particular translation is better than another.

“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19–20, 2012, do hereby reaffirm our belief in and adherence to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.�
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1225/on- ... -inerrancy

"We therefore believe, teach and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth."
https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doct ... principles

[Tcg]

Though there might be more, I could only find two Christian groups that clearly state they believe in Biblical inerrancy without any qualifications - the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. It appears what they mean by the Bible is a Bible that you can hold in your hands (any English translation of the Bible). They don't seem to qualify it by saying any particular translation is better than another.

“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19–20, 2012, do hereby reaffirm our belief in and adherence to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.�
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1225/on- ... -inerrancy

"We therefore believe, teach and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth."
https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doct ... principles

Some descriptions of inerrancy limit the concept to the original autographs. Here is an example:

• Finally, there is the inerrancy of Scripture. Inerrancy is a natural outflow of infallibility in the traditional, orthodox sense. Since the authors could not err when writing Scripture, the bible contains no affirmations of anything that is contrary to fact. Inerrancy is a quality of the original text of the bible. Translations may err, but the original manuscripts penned by the prophets and apostles do not.
  
  https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... inerrancy/

It is surprising that the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod don't include this detail. That could certainly lead to confusion concerning various translations.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by otseng]


JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

Recognition of Scriptures as Inspired. ... writings that are inerrant and that have the same authority as if written by God himself.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/120 ... p=par#h=19

While recognizing that the Bible contains parables and expressions that are symbolic and figurative, Jehovah’s witnesses do not try to ‘water down’ other parts obviously meant to be taken literally. They accept the Bible’s history as authentic, not mere allegory. They agree with Jesus and his apostles as to the factualness of the Bible’s account of the creation of man in Eden, the coming of the Flood and other historic events. (Matt. 19:4-6; 24:37-39; 1 Cor. 15:45-48; 2 Pet. 2:5) They have only one creed: the Bible itself, and they do not try to alter its teachings to conform to creedal teachings of a trinity of deities, inherent immortality of the soul, or eternal torment.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/197 ... p=par#h=20

Jehovah's Witness official belief statement: The Bible
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 125#873125