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.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 39 by WeSee]

The topic is not is the Bible inerrant, but is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

[2timothy316]

[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?

It's not a contradiction. People still had to treat their fellow man, including slaves as themselves. You still will not accept that in most cases slavery was voluntary. That is why it's not a contradiction. Being a slave to get back on ones feet was better than dying in the wilderness. Being a slave in Israel was better than being a free citizen in some countries back in that time. Mainly because of the laws that Israel was under concerning slaves. There were more laws than the one that you keep reading over and over. But you don't care about the other laws I guess.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 39 by WeSee]

The topic is not is the Bible inerrant, but is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

What is your definition of inerrant BTW?

[otseng]

[Replying to post 39 by WeSee]

The topic is not is the Bible inerrant, but is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

What is your definition of inerrant BTW?

I have not offered a definition. Like the OP says, the definition is up for discussion.

But, would you agree with the majority view that whatever it means, it only applies to the autographs?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 38 by otseng]

How about reversal of the question.

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

I think it is being argued that errancy is the only alternative to passages which, for whatever reason cannot be understood or are incomparable with human sensibilities, knowledge or standards. In short if *I* think God would not have said or done that, we can conclude God would not have said or done that. I (as a human) exist as the supreme authority as to what should or should not be accepted as of divine origin. I ( and only I) decide if any given scrpture originated in the mind of God or not.

God exists but he has no active input on this issue, whether that be when the first bible writer put ink paper or in he transmission of scripture.


JW

[Elijah John]

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.

Sorry, didn't mean to derail. I introduced that passage as an example of the Bible's imperfection, and was attempting to demonstrate that it could still be considered authoritative in spite of such passages. Redeemed, as it were, by it's other more benevolent passages, and also because of it's centrality in the spirituality of Christians and Jews.

It surprises me that defenders of an infallible Bible will defend even passages such as Exodus 21.20-21.

Getting back to a point you made in an earlier post, are you taking the position that the Bible is infallible in it's original languages? Seems to me the contradictions and occasional atrocities have their origins even in the original copies. Or can every internal contradiction, absurdity or atrocity be explained away by appealing to "original languages", idioms etc?

[JehovahsWitness]

Seems to me the contradictions and occasional atrocities have their origins even in the original copies.

So would it be fair to say that you don't believe any infallible group of written words (of any number) has ever existed on earth?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 39 by WeSee]

The topic is not is the Bible inerrant, but is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

What is your definition of inerrant BTW?

I have not offered a definition. Like the OP says, the definition is up for discussion.

But, would you agree with the majority view that whatever it means, it only applies to the autographs?

Only if the word inerrant is to mean perfection in the absolute since of the word.

Yet I do not view the word inerrant has perfect in the absolute sense. I think that the inerrant (incapable of being wrong) quality can be passed on. I also have faith that Jehovah God the creator of all things, can help people get an inerrant message from modern day Bibles. It also appears we have some the most accurate Bibles today, compared to even 100 years ago. Even without the autographs more and more people are finding more truth about God. I have watched better translated Bibles free people from such doctrines as Hellfire.

Think about this, the first crack in the religion that grew after the death of John, that held power for so long didn't start to fracture because of any new doctrine. It was because a man made the Bible available in a common language that the common man could read. What they read didn't match up with what they were being taught. I personally think it was God that began the freeing of His own Word. If he will do that, then certainly He could back translations of His Word to pass on inerrancy.

[Difflugia]

Yet I do not view the word inerrant has perfect in the absolute sense. I think that the inerrant (incapable of being wrong) quality can be passed on. I also have faith that Jehovah God the creator of all things, can help people get an inerrant message from modern day Bibles.

That's an interesting thought. It sounds like you're saying that inerrancy isn't an absolute state of the text, but is an interaction between the author, translator, and reader that is mediated by God. Inerrancy is a property of reading or hearing the Bible rather than of the words alone. Is that what you meant to say?

I personally think it was God that began the freeing of His own Word. If he will do that, then certainly He could back translations of His Word to pass on inerrancy.

A similar line of thinking is what led to KJV-only doctrines. If God inspired authors to write inerrant text, then God surely can preserve that text and inspire translators to preserve the meaning of His text. If God saw a reason to inspire the text in the first place, then He must certainly have preserved it for even modern readers.

According to that thinking, since textual criticism completely preserves none of the source texts, no text produced by criticism can be the inerrant original. Beginning with the ASV, all modern English translations are based on critical texts, so the last translation of a preserved text must be the KJV.

[Eloi]

The Bible has a very special peculiarity: even if there could be (as it looks there are) some particular texts or passages that are difficult to understand or define what they exactly mean, the rest of the Bible can tell (most of the time) what the passage DOES NOT MEAN and what it does with a large amount of certainty. In that sense, there is a message in the Bible that is unmistakable and no matter what translation is used, if the content is known globally, then any confusion that may arise is clarified. Jehovah's Witnesses use any biblical translation to demonstrate the things Bible teaches, because we have extensive knowledge of its content ... otherwise we could get confused when trying to interpret an isolated and inaccurately translated passage.