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.

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 107 by myth-one.com]

The ark and two stone tablets were carried by the Israelites on their wanderings in the wilderness, and later placed by Solomon in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Such an important document from God could have been handed down on platinum plates in multiple copies for every corner of the world. Stone tablets? The omnipotent God seems to be stuck in a primitive mindset limited to only the technology known at the time. Very telling.

Yes, you're right. It tells us God used a medium which was understood at that time.

Very good observation, Brunumb!!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 110 by myth-one.com]

Yes, you're right. It tells us God used a medium which was understood at that time.
Very good observation, brunumb!!

How does using stone assist with getting God's word across to a believing populace? Surely they would be more impressed and convinced by the use of a mysterious, non-perishable metal that clearly came from the hand of the creator himself. The whole scenario smacks of human contrivance with no gods involved.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 104 by myth-one.com]

So just an example to illustrate your position,

...if someone asked you "Did the Exodus happen or could a coyiest just added it to impress future readers ?" What would you say?

Did Jesus have 12 Apostles or could it he have had 11 and the number was rounded up and another Apotle invented ?

Did Jesus really say he was the son of God or did he say he was as carpenter and the gospel writers made him walk on water to add dramatic effect?

What are we talking about when we say the scriptures were imperfectly copied? To what degree are we saying there are errors in the bible? Is any bible story up for grabs?

JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 104 by myth-one.com]

So just an example to illustrate your position, if someone asked you "Did the Exodus happen or could a coyiest just added it to impress future readers ?" What would you say?

Did Jesus have 12 Apostles or could it he have had 11 and the number was rounded up and another Apotle invented ?


What Would you say?

What an odd response. myth-one.com didn't mention the Exodus nor did myth-one.com refer to the number of Apostles. Odder still is that your post didn't address what was actually stated.

I suppose some consider the creation of straw man arguments a valid reply. Those who see it as a diversion tactic are less impressed.


Tcg

[otseng]

I didnt say there is no consensus, (and the term is obviously not meaningless), I said "...in the absence of knowing what the word means". There doesn't have to be a consensus there just has to be a dictionary; most people that can read agree what inerrant means and I know what the word means because I speak English, it means "without error".

Anybody can make up any definition for any word. But, unless there's some consensus with a definition, it cannot be applied broadly.

Providing a good definition of inerrancy that is widely accepted is not easy.

One of the major problems is the lack of agreement on precisely what "inerrancy" means.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 23b450f9e/

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is a bit trickier to define than it seems.
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bib ... mentalism/

Donald Bloesch puts it, I am not comfortable with the term inerrancy when applied to Scripture because it has been co-opted by a rationalistic, empiricistic mentality that reduces truth to facticity.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unsystema ... icalism-2/

The main problem I see with defining inerrancy is all the qualifications that needs to be added to it. When it has the need to specify a list of what inerrancy is not (which seems to just keep growing), then it reminds me of the epicycles in Greek cosmology.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 114 by otseng]

Fair enough. Do you have any comment to make about the JW position ? Is it clear?


JW

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 110 by myth-one.com]

Yes, you're right. It tells us God used a medium which was understood at that time.
Very good observation, brunumb!!

How does using stone assist with getting God's word across to a believing populace? Surely they would be more impressed and convinced by the use of a mysterious, non-perishable metal that clearly came from the hand of the creator himself. The whole scenario smacks of human contrivance with no gods involved.

The children of Israel are God's chosen people. We are to observe them and recognize without a doubt that God punishes them when they disobey Him, and rewards them when they obey Him, regardless of their strength.

The Children of Israel were given the responsibility of protecting something unique and precious. They needed to defend and maintain it in its original condition eternally.

If that something was non-perishable as you suggest, it would have required no human care -- and that would have defeated their purpose.

The first pair of these precious stone tablets barely made it down the mountain.

They got serious with the replacement set of tablets, which contained the ten commandments and required each tablet to have writing on both sides.

So there was probably nothing else written on the stone tablets.

[otseng]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

Let's look at the primary proof text for the doctrine of inerrancy.

The phrase "is given by inspiration of God" in the Greek is theopneustos
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2ti ... nc_1128016

Literally, theopneustos means God-breath or God-Spirit. The word is only used once in the Bible. Since it's not used elsewhere, we do not know exactly what this word means since we cannot compare it to another context of the word usage.

Translating it as "inspired" is not a direct translation, but an interpretation of what theopneustos means. A better translation is "All scripture is God-breathed" which is done in the NIV, ESV and YLT.

When Paul wrote this to Timothy, he was not referring to the New Testament since it was not compiled when he wrote the letter. He was referring to the Old Testament. So, even if this passage is applied to inerrancy, it would technically only apply to the OT.

Most times, when 2 Tim 3:16 is quoted, the next verse is omitted. But, the next verse is the heart of the passage. The primary purpose of the passage is not to declare how scripture is to be viewed, but to say scripture equips men for good works.

[2Ti 3:17 NIV] 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[2Ti 3:17 YLT] 17 that the man of God may be fitted -- for every good work having been completed.

So, if we take the Bible as authoritative, 2 Tim 3:16 offers weak support for the doctrine of inerrancy.

[Difflugia]

One thing that comes up for me quite a bit, particularly when discussing certain apologetic arguments, is whether or not the Biblical narrator can or must be treated as reliable if the Bible is inerrant.

One example of this that I've mentioned before is the summoning of Samuel's spirit by the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28. A number of people (particularly JWs and SDAs) believe that a spirit can't be summoned, therefore the spirit can't have been Samuel's. The apologetic argument is that the story is told from the point of view of Saul (or possibly the witch) in the sense of an unreliable narrator. In this case, even aside from direct quotation of the participants, the biblical narrator itself treats the spirit as Samuel ("Samuel said to Saul..." in verse 15) and must be treated as unreliable in a literary sense.

A similar example is the story of Jacob's flock in Genesis 30-31. In apologetic contexts, this story comes up because it assumes that certain forms of what George Frazer called "sympathetic magic" in The Golden Bough actually work in the real (or at least biblical) world. In short, Jacob causes certain sheep and goats to have mottled offspring by forcing them to look at mottled sticks while they are mating. In the narrative, Jacob is cheating Laban by intentionally causing Laban's flocks to be weak, but his own to be strong. He then lies to his wives and says that God caused the differences between the flocks.

Because we now know genetics doesn't work that way, some apologists have argued that the story is being told from Jacob's point of view in that he thinks he's cheating Laban, but it's really God doing the manipulation of the flocks. Jacob then realizes it was God in time to tell his wives about it.

First, the narrator tells us:

And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban's flock. Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys.

Jacob then tells his wives (who are still Laban's daughters, remember):

You know that I have served your father with all my strength, yet your father has cheated me and changed my wages ten times. But God did not permit him to harm me. If he said, ‘The spotted shall be your wages,’ then all the flock bore spotted; and if he said, ‘The striped shall be your wages,’ then all the flock bore striped. Thus God has taken away the livestock of your father and given them to me.

If we suspend disbelief, as it were, and accept that one can alter genetics with peeled sticks, then the story is both funny and meaningful. Jacob and Laban are both deceivers, but Laban learns that he can't outfox the fox. The narrator is reliable, but Jacob's quote is deceitful.

If the Bible must be inerrant in a way that keeps Jacob from using magical principles to enrich himself at Laban's expense, though, things are reversed. Laban is a jerk, Jacob is honest, and God helps Jacob succeed anyway. This would, however, once again make the biblical narrator "unreliable" in order to preserve inerrancy in regard to modern genetics.

If the stories are read as I think they should be, can the stories still be inerrant? If not, are there any clues to when the narrator is unreliable, either here or in the rest of the Bible?

[myth-one.com]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

When Paul wrote this to Timothy, he was not referring to the New Testament since it was not compiled when he wrote the letter. He was referring to the Old Testament. So, even if this passage is applied to inerrancy, it would technically only apply to the OT.

It would refer to all existing scripture at that time -- say the Old Testament.

But when the scripture was enlarged (say by the New Testament) then that added scripture would also be "inspired by God" or "God-breathed" at the time it was included as scripture according to II Timothy 3:16.

"All scripture is inspired or breathed by God" doesn't seem to be limited as to when it was written or complied.

All, any, or every seem equally inclusive of the past, present, and future.

That is, all, any, and every scripture is inspired or breathed by God.

Scripture: the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.

Sacred: connected with God.