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.

[marco]

Inerrant means free from error. The Bible (OT and NT) is not free from error.

And that is all one need say, since it then becomes a question of liking oranges or apples. It is then impossible to take a piece of scripture as providing evidence for one's theology since we do not know which text is corrupt.

…. just as Christ said (from Matt 23), "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees." [//quote]

All very well for Christ to say this, but he then relied on scribes as the vehicle for imparting his important messages, instead of committing his precious words to paper, as did other notables in history. And to add confusion to consternation, he warned that false prophets would speak in his name. Could one of them have penned Revelation? Or Paul's epistles?

Paul states that "all scripture is inspired..." This is a true statement, but a) this does not mean that scripture is free from error (as explained in the first paragraph above), and b) not everything in the bible is inspired.

If it is a true statement, Tam, then (b) is untrue given Paul's careless employment of "all." Your narrow assessment of what constitutes Scripture is interesting opinion.

Revelation is the only book in the NT that claims to be inspired (and so, scripture).

This is a horrendous revelation. Revelation is Edward Lear at his poorest, dragons and horsemen and the whore of Babylon - Babylon? - and circus sword swallowers. Revelation is open to 666 different interpretations. It has the sole virtue of inspiring some reasonably good horror films.

The disciple Christ loved who wrote the gospel called "John" wrote his own testimony as an eyewitness and apostle of Christ.

We do not know that the writer "John" was the "beloved disciple". Irenaeus, some 150 years later, suggests this might be so but as far as I know Irenaeus wasn't gifted with infallibility. Many believe Mary was immaculately conceived, and assumed into heaven, but belief is several miles from truth, is it not? And one person's dogma is another's blasphemy.

Once we familiarise ourselves with the notion of an everlasting Christ who is the man beside us in the number 17 bus, or the babe who will appear in lighted churches in a few weeks time, we can readily grow other ideas and say that Christ himself is their author. An entire industry has grown up on this basis, and the Vatican is doing rather well. Meantime, truth is still up for debate.

In the end a single error found in the Bible acts as a pollutant; it questions other texts that state miraculous truth. If we read Matthew and, using common sense and everyday discernment, we can see he's raving or lying; this sadly reflects on the rest of what he has to say. It's a brave soul who stands up to defend biblical truth. Go well.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 136 by otseng]



I'm glad an unbeliever marco post # 139 has joined the discussion because it illustrates that his view is entirely in line with that of most Christians (with the exception of JehovahsWitness and a few others), the only difference being import.

Both views seem to confligate a few spelling mistakes, inversions of fixed expressions, omissions and one or two failed attempts to corrupt its contents to wholesale declarations that our current bible is interwoven with fiction, fabrication and errors.

Marco (Correct me if I'm mistaken Marco) feels the bible has some ideas and reflections that are valuable but the stories, accounts history, science and commands therein are mostly (not all) the erroneous imaginations of some ancients. He concludes the errors are "a pollutant" which undermine confidence in the whole, you (osteng) say the errors indeed there but they are "unimportant" and we can still have confidence in authors that wrote down errors.

I have to wonder if you would have such confidence in a doctor writing a prescription for your critically ill child.

Regarding appraisal of the content (rather than the authority) of the bible, put a "Marco" in a pair of sandals (remove the stinging sacrasm and mocking atheistic rhetoric) and don't we have an "osteng"?

[tam]

Peace to you!

Before I respond, can you please explain what you mean by authoritative?

The Bible is the highest source that all Christians must submit to. Any doctrine or teaching from the church must have Biblical support. It supersedes the authority of people, traditions, opinions, and creeds.

Thank you for explaining.


Then no, the bible is not (and cannot be) authoritative - and this is REGARDLESS of whether the bible is errant or inerrant.


Christ - the true Word of God - is the highest source to whom all Christians must submit (of course God is the One who gave Christ all authority, except over God Himself; submitting to Christ is submitting to God). Any doctrine or teaching or claim or inspired expression should be held up to the Light to see if it is true... and Christ - not the bible - is that Light. If something is in conflict with Christ (His words and His example), then it cannot be true. Because Christ is the Truth.

(Nothing from God will be against love either, because God is love)


Many MANY false doctrines and teachings are out there in the world, all claiming and showing support from the bible. Upon holding those teachings up to Christ, most can be shown to be false simply because they are not from Him and are often even in contradiction to His teaching (word and deed). In fact, this is one such errant doctrine: that the bible is inerrant or infallable or the Truth or the Word of God, or that it is the source of authority for Christians. We can know this is an errant doctrine because:


1 - Christ did not teach this.

2 - that book does not even make those claims about itself.

3 - the book ITSELF testifies that God has said: "This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to Him." Not to the bible, not to man, not to religion. Listen to His Son. That right there makes CHRIST the authority for Christians, as even that book attests.

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

If your highest source of authority is a book with errors, then how do you keep yourself from being led into error?





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

That right there makes CHRIST the authority for Christians, as even that book attests.

How many of the biblical quotations of Jesus are accurate? Is there anything attributed to Him that He didn't actually say? What's your source or method for knowing what Christ actually said as opposed to what was incompletely or incorrectly reported?

[Eloi]

Tam, are you not being contradictory?

You can not know a single thing about Jesus if you do not consider the Bible as totally reliable and inerrant. We all learn about Jesus from the Bible and the words God said about Jesus and you just cited, you just read them from the Bible. Since those words came from the Bible, are you sure those words are trustworthy?

[tam]

Peace to you, Difflugia,

That right there makes CHRIST the authority for Christians, as even that book attests.

How many of the biblical quotations of Jesus are accurate? Is there anything attributed to Him that He didn't actually say? What's your source or method for knowing what Christ actually said as opposed to what was incompletely or incorrectly reported?

I have taken most everything written with a grain of salt unless or until my Lord (Jaheshua) confirms it to me (in word, or with the spirit He has given me, perhaps in opening the scripture to me), or teaches me what was originally meant, what is true.


The words attributed to my Lord that I remember, I always took as true - but then, I also always heard truth in His words.


A little more on these things here:


viewtopic.php?p=738377#738377



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 141 by tam]

The book TESTIFIES that God said this is my son....?

NO IT DOESNT!
WHERE DOES IT SAY THE VOICE WAS GOD'S?

In fact the "voice" that you say is God's is described by those who heard the voice. It thundered and sounded angelic or something. BUT NO ONE...NO ONE...I REPEAT NO ONE SAID IT WAS GODS VOICE. If it was Gid they would have said it. And if God wanted you to obey that voice he would have made it very clear that it was he who was speaking. YOU SAY it is God. Repeat: you say it. How dare you put words in the mouth of God. I know you want God to kill himself (jesus) so that you can live is your hearts desire but youve gone too far. You just want that voice to be God. SPEAK THE TRUTH NOT LIES. THE TRUTH IS: A VOICE SAID IT

The highest source of authority is the Hebrew Scriptures. Not the Christian testament. Thats why the Christian testament tries to prove it is true by quoting the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jesus was a Jew.

Your lord who you worship is a Jew. Absolute truth for Jesus is the Hebrew scriptures. Where GOD DOES SPEAK and where the prophets speak.

You want to hear what God says youll find him speaking in the Hebrew Scriptures.

"A voice?" A voice said?

I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

[Eloi]

[Replying to tam]

So you are relying on your own mind ... But the Bible says:

2 Pet. 1:19 Consequently we have the prophetic word [made] more sure; and YOU are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises, in YOUR hearts. 20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

Don't you think that every sect, religion, group, with all their contradictions are the product of that way of thinking?

John said:

1 John 4:6 We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error.

... so every person who don't consider inspired the Greek Scriptures does not originate with God. And what John said is based on what Jesus said:

Matt. 10:40 “He that receives YOU receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth. 41 He that receives a prophet because he is a prophet will get a prophet’s reward, and he that receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will get a righteous man’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell YOU truly, he will by no means lose his reward.�

... and:

Luk. 10:16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me. And whoever disregards you disregards me also. Moreover, whoever disregards me disregards also Him who sent me.�

... and:

Acts 1:6 When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?� 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to YOU to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction; 8 but YOU will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon YOU, and YOU will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a and to the most distant part of the earth.�

... and:

John 14:25 “While remaining with YOU I have spoken these things to YOU. 26 But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach YOU all things and bring back to YOUR minds all the things I told YOU.

Do you really think that you are closer to the truth Jesus taught than the Christians who with the influence of the holy spirit wrote the New Testament?

[otseng]

In short does the bible supersede the opinions of historians and scientists?

I was going to post a response, but I think it's going to open a huge can of worms. So, it's best left to another thread to discuss the scope of the authority of the Bible.

So the bible supersedes all opinions, even your own? From an earlier discussion you say...

If someone can argue from the Bible that my position is incorrect, then I'll accept my position is wrong.

Regarding appraisal of the content (rather than the authority) of the bible, put a "Marco" in a pair of sandals (remove the stinging sacrasm and mocking atheistic rhetoric) and don't we have an "osteng"?

I would consider it an honor to be compared to marco. Alas, I'm "otseng", not "osteng". In regards to content, I highly doubt marco shares my view on the creation, flood, evolution, and the resurrection.

[otseng]

Then no, the bible is not (and cannot be) authoritative - and this is REGARDLESS of whether the bible is errant or inerrant.

Well, for the purposes of this thread (and this subforum), the authority of the Bible is assumed and is not open for debate.

If your highest source of authority is a book with errors, then how do you keep yourself from being led into error?

It is too simplistic to categorize the Bible as either a book with errors or a book with no errors. But, I assume your broader question is how should we approach the Bible if it's not inerrant.