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 104 by myth-one.com]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?

There are dozens of "Bibles" not one.

Did God inspired all of these versions?

The answer has to be no, because they are all different in some way.

=========================================================================

In any one version of the Bible, one can easily find what appears to be contradictions.

For example (KJV):

And no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13)

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (II Kings 2:11)

Apparent contradiction: No human except Jesus has ever gone to heaven versus Elijah went to heaven.

It is obvious that both of these verses cannot be true if both references to "heaven" refer to the home of God.

The first verse states that no man has ascended up to heaven except Jesus, the Son of Man.

No man would include Elijah. Therefore, Elijah went up by a whirlwind into the sky or atmosphere.

In addition, if heaven is away from the earth, Second Kings 2:11 is a physical impossibility as translated in the King James Bible! That is, whirlwinds only exist in atmospheres. Whirlwinds cannot occur or travel in the vacuum of space. Therefore, one could not travel through the vacuum of space in a whirlwind to another location. Second Kings 2:11 would be translated better as:

And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into the heavens.

Elijah's mission was completed at that earthly location and his life was in danger as he had angered powerful religious leaders. So God transported him somewhere else through the atmosphere in a whirlwind.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 114 by otseng]

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

Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. This is true of the original writings, none of which are known to exist today. The copies of those original writings and the translations made in many languages cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002178

My comment would be the same as anyone else who uses the term. The term inerrancy is meaningless and the term should no longer be used.

[JehovahsWitness]

BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
"When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences."

=================================================================================

JEHOVAH'S WITNESESS

SUMMARY The original bible writers recorded God's thoughts and instructions with absolutely no errors or deviations. Guided as they were by miraculous powers to write only what he wanted recorded in the language he wanted it recorded in. The resulting original written script being perfect, without any errors (whether historical, scientific, factual...) or mistakes of any kind .

OFFICIAL STATEMENTS

Jehovah's Witness
"Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. This is true of the original writings, none of which are known to exist today. The copies of those original writings and the translations made in many languages cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy."

By “inspiration” is meant, not a mere heightening of the intellect and emotions to a higher degree of accomplishment or sensitivity (as is often said of secular artists or poets), but the production of writings that are inerrant and that have the same authority as if written by God himself.

Source:https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/120 ... p=par#h=23

Copyists. As far as is known today, no handwritten original, or autograph, manuscripts of the Bible are in existence. Yet the Bible has been preserved in accurate, reliable form because Biblical copyists in general, accepting the Scriptures as being divinely inspired, sought perfection in their arduous labor of producing manuscript copies of God’s Word.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/120 ... &p=par#h=1

JW


RELATED POSTS

What do various groups have to say about biblical inerrancy? (otseng)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p985185


What does the term "the bible" refer to?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

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

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

Is the term "inerrancy" without MEANING?
viewtopic.php?p=1091724#p1091724

Should the term "inerrancy" be replaced?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

Has the integrity of the bible been corrupted by copies errors?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p985365

If bible translations are not inspired, how can they be trusted?
viewtopic.php?p=986376#p986376

Should figurative or poetic language in scripture be classified as "biblical errors"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 43#p985543

Did Jesus suggest copies and translations of holy scripture were erronious?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

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

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

[otseng]

We can also ask if the belief in inerrancy is necessary for salvation.

One of the most respected apologists, William Lane Craig, says belief in inerrancy is not necessary for salvation.

If people have to jump through the hoops of biblical inerrancy in order to become a Christian, you will actually prevent people from coming to know Christ by forcing the unbeliever to embrace this belief in order to be saved.

As such it is an important doctrine, but it is not a central doctrine to the Christian faith. You can be a Christian and not affirm it.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... inerrancy/

One of the most respected Christian apologists of the 20th century was C.S. Lewis. He did not subscribe to inerrancy.

A second shortcoming in Lewis’s doctrine of Scripture is that he believed there were contradictions and probably errors in the Bible.

“Errors of minor fact are permitted to remain� in Scripture, he wrote. “One must remember of course that our modern and western attention to dates, numbers, etc. simply did not exist in the ancient world. No one was looking for that sort of truth� (Letters, vol. 3, 961, emphasis original). Thus, the Bible is not the word of God “in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science of history� (Psalms, 112).

“The very kind of truth we are often demanding was,� in his opinion, “never even envisaged by the ancients�

C.S. Lewis doubted or denied that certain parts of the Bible were historical, including books that evangelicals traditionally have regarded as historical narrative.

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/in ... -scripture

However, Lewis held a high view of scripture, which I also hold.

However: despite his demurrals on inerrancy, Lewis generally had a high view of Scripture, not a low one.

"I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is because I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous. Some people find the miraculous so hard to believe that they cannot imagine any reason for my acceptance of it other than a prior belief that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth. But this I do not hold."

[otseng]

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
"When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences."

The key phrase is "and correctly interpreted". Whose interpretation? The Jehovah's Witness? The Roman Catholic Pope? Fred Phelps? NT Wright? Madalyn Murray O'Hair? The list could go on. With the "and correctly interpreted" qualification added, the term is meaningless.

[otseng]

Fuller Theological Seminary has a fairly balanced view on inerrancy from an evangelical point of view.

This doctrinal commitment is built on a submission to the authority of Scripture, which must stand as teacher and judge of all that we think and do. It both inspires and corrects our doctrine and our conduct. It must always be clear that for us as evangelicals, the Scriptures outrank all of our doctrinal statements, even statements as carefully written and as strongly believed as those in the Statement of Faith.

Where inerrancy refers to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the churches through the biblical writers, we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.

Its dangers, when improperly defined, are

1. that it implies a precision alien to the minds of the Bible writers and their own use of the Scriptures;
2. that it diverts attention from the message of salvation and the instruction in righteousness which are the Bible’s key themes;
3. that it may encourage glib and artificial harmonizations rather than serious wrestling with the implication of biblical statements which may seem to disagree;
4. that it leads those who think that there is one proven error in the Bible (however minor), to regard its whole teaching as subject to doubt;
5. that too often it has undermined our confidence in the Bible by a retreat for refuge to the original manuscripts (which we do not possess) whenever problems cannot otherwise be resolved;
6. that it prompts us to an inordinate defensiveness of Scripture which seems out of keeping with the bold confidence with which the prophets, the apostles, and our Lord proclaimed it.

https://www.fuller.edu/About/Mission-an ... and-Teach/

Where I would quibble with Fuller is they have multiple meanings to the term inerrant - one that applies to "what the Holy Spirit is saying" and to "undue emphasis". Instead of trying to save the term by having multiple definitions, I submit the term should no longer be used.

[JehovahsWitness]

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
"When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences."

The key phrase is "and correctly interpreted". Whose interpretation? The Jehovah's Witness? The Roman Catholic Pope? Fred Phelps? NT Wright? Madalyn Murray O'Hair? The list could go on. With the "and correctly interpreted" qualification added, the term is meaningless.

I don't know who the authors of Evangelical Dictionary of Theology had in mind, but I personally would say .. correctly interpreted by Almighty God.


JW

[polonius]

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

RESPONSE: Yes fundamentalist stick together. But can be proven inaccurate. Do the four gospels say that Jesus was crucified on same day? Ask a fundamentalist. Then ask someone who is reality oriented.

[myth-one.com]

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

The two statements highlighted in RED above do not even mention the Bible.

Both are statements stating that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant words of God.

Bibles are not the Holy Scriptures.

They are translations of the Holy Scriptures, and may very well contains errors.

======================================

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.

The article is entitled "The Scriptures."

But the first sentence then switches immediately to the Holy Bible!

They claim that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired.

Maybe or maybe not.

Anyway, they are erroneously equating the God inscribed scriptures with Bibles.

There are over 50 different English versions of the Bible.

They typically state that they are "translations of the Holy Scriptures."

[brianbbs67]

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

RESPONSE: Yes fundamentalist stick together. But can be proven inaccurate. Do the four gospels say that Jesus was crucified on same day? Ask a fundamentalist. Then ask someone who is reality oriented.

Or born on the same day.