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.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 30 by 2timothy316]

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...

In the above God expressly gives permission to own other human beings, consider them property and for children to inherit said property. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that it expressly gives permission. Not just that slavery happens. Letiticus 25:44-46 expressly gives permission.

If God were depicted as expressly giving permission to lie, steal, rape, etc. that would also contradict Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

We have similar things today like back in Israel. A major one is military service. While a soldier is not considered property. One can't just leave the military when ever they want.

A soldier is NOT considered property. Therein lies the difference.

[Difflugia]

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.

This genuinely surprised me and I thought it had to be wrong, so I looked myself. I found lots of individual churches and ministries explicitly professing inerrancy, but no more denominations than you did. Even demoninations that I consider to be very conservative either didn't mention it anywhere or explicitly disclaimed it in some way.

Both the Christian Reformed Church and Reformed Church of America (the two main Calvinist umbrella organizations) affirm inspiration, authority, and infallibility, but not inerrancy (one might be able to infer inerrancy from that, but I'm not sure). Seventh Day Adventist church historians said that inerrancy isn't a doctrinal necessity.

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.

Most churches that affirm inerrancy agree with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirms that the Bible is inerrant in "the autographic text." It apparently affirms the principles of textual criticism:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by Eloi]

So you seem to be arguing that at various times, slavery was acceptable. Noted. Does that mean that God approved of the institution because some of His people practiced it? Or was God making allowances for (while not endorsing) the barbarity of primitives.

Does slavery in any way harmonize with God's Golden Rule? How so?

To bring it back around more directly to the OP, are verses like Exodus 21.20-21 Divinely authoritative? Did YHVH dictate that passage to Moses to pass along to His people? Is the God you worship pleased when people enslave each other?

Or are there some inherent flaws in the Bible which should be sifted out by the Divine agency of God-given Reason? Sifted out to be ignored, criticized or relegated to the bias and ignorance of Primitives.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 30 by 2timothy316]

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...

In the above God expressly gives permission to own other human beings, consider them property and for children to inherit said property. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that it expressly gives permission. Not just that slavery happens. Letiticus 25:44-46 expressly gives permission.

If God were depicted as expressly giving permission to lie, steal, rape, etc. that would also contradict Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

We have similar things today like back in Israel. A major one is military service. While a soldier is not considered property. One can't just leave the military when ever they want.

A soldier is NOT considered property. Therein lies the difference.

I have never denied what the Bible says, yet you keep avoiding the question... How does the Law's handling of slaves prove the Bible's message as errant? Don't we need to stay on topic here?

Yet the consequences for leaving the military without permission are the same... I don't see the difference. In some countries joining the military is mandatory. They either join or go to jail. Even in the USA, they can call for a draft. They either join or go to jail... calling them property or not.. who cares when they are treated the same.

Interestingly your main concern is that they are considered to be property. Yet that back into those days it meant something different than what we think today. Today people don't take care of their possessions. They take them for granted. But back then, your property meant your life, so you'd better take care of it. Same goes for people that were slaves for the Israelites, they better take care of them. Jehovah even calls Israel His 'special property'. This is not a negative term, its a good one. I think some have been indoctrinated by what they know of modern slavery but have no idea that slavery of the Bible was no where near what slavery means today.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 34 by 2timothy316]

Since you ignored the following from my previous post, here it is once again:

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...

In the above God expressly gives permission to own other human beings, consider them property and for children to inherit said property. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that it expressly gives permission. Not just that slavery happens. Leviticus 25:44-46 expressly gives permission.

The bottom line is that in Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as expressly giving permission to own other human being which contradicts Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

If God were depicted as expressly giving permission to lie, steal, rape, etc. that would also contradict Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

[2timothy316]

Does slavery in any way harmonize with God's Golden Rule? How so?

Have you ever read the book of Ruth?

“I am Ruth your slave girl." - Ruth 3:9

She had nothing to her name. But she could work. Thus she became a slave of Boaz. He was kind enough to accept her as a slave. To feed her and clothe her. She eventually was given everything she would ever need. Which never would have happened of the Israelites were not able to take on slaves.

In many cases slavery was a way out of poverty. The law didn't allow for a person to be kidnapped into slavery. It's not like the slave trade we know of today done by Euporeans and America.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 34 by 2timothy316]

Since you ignored the following from my previous post, here it is once again:

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life...

In the above God expressly gives permission to own other human beings, consider them property and for children to inherit said property. You seem to keep ignoring the fact that it expressly gives permission. Not just that slavery happens. Leviticus 25:44-46 expressly gives permission.

The bottom line is that in Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as expressly giving permission to own other human being which contradicts Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

If God were depicted as expressly giving permission to lie, steal, rape, etc. that would also contradict Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

This doesn't answer my question at all. Israel having slaves is a fact. We can't chose to believe they did or not. It happened. There is also no other record that the Israelites treated slaves any different than what the Bible says. So I don't see how that fact makes the Bible untrustworthy.

Also, you keep ignoring the story of Ruth. A person that benefited from being a slave. You have got to toss out the European slave trade and thinking that was what it was like in Israel, it wasn't.

You apparently hear the word slave and think of an African on a boat being send to Europe. But what you should think of is a person that has come upon hard times and needs help to get back on their feet, even if means they are giving up some freedoms.

[otseng]

Just want to jump in here. We could debate all these verses in the Bible forever. But, that's not the intention of this thread. So, please start other threads to discuss specific verses.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 37 by 2timothy316]

Actually it does address it. Perhaps you glossed over the following:

The bottom line is that in Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as expressly giving permission to own other human being which contradicts Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

If God were depicted as expressly giving permission to lie, steal, rape, etc. that would also contradict Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40.

If the Bible was in fact inerrant, how is it that in Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as contradicting Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 38 by otseng]

How about reversal of the question.

Why is it necessary for some the Bible to be errant?