Inerrant or Not?

[POI]

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be. I'm not a fundamentalist, and fundamentalism is a fairly recent faction in Christendom. They can defend their own position.

Seems this would be a settled topic among believers by now. And yet, for as many Christians as I engage, some claim inerrancy, while some do not. Can we settle this topic once and for all?

For debate: Is the Bible inerrant or not? And how exactly do we know?

To add more concise substance, I'm not a believer. The question is posed to ask if the writers of the Bible intended for their given writings to be taken literally and accurately? Can we know?

[otseng]

I think that more to the truth is the idea that folks have been "sold a bill of goods" and told they must adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy, but when this doctrine is challenged, they cannot defend the position.

Yes, I agree inerrancy cannot be defended for translations. And I agree many Christians have been sold the idea they must hold to the doctrine of inerrancy.

At the root, the issue is not really if the Bible (whether it's autographs or copies or translations) is inerrant, but is it reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative? It's impossible to defend the former (esp since the term is so nebulous), but it's possible to defend the latter.

[POI]

even if the material is not eyewitness accounts, it is this material which convinces them the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were convinced in what they saw. You can't make this stuff up!

When you say 'them', which unbiased scholars -- (which do not have a personal vested interest in the claims) -- conclude that the earliest followers/disciples were actually convinced of what the Bible claims they saw?

I really do not know how you know this, but it really does not matter if the NT is reliable or not. Either way, there are certain things we can be sure of by reading the material and it does not have to be reliable to know these things.

If the testimonial is not reliable, then it's pretty much game over.

Listen! We will have to save this for another time. I am being overwhelmed with responses, and I do not want to get off track here.

My response was to counter your claim about the said skeptic "counter arguments". Meaning, I doubt Jesus had a decent burial to begin with, which renders the 'alternative' stated "arguments" irrelevant. As I stated prior, the Bible reads of half-truths, fabrication, embellishment, myth/legend/lore, political motivation(s), blatant additions/subtractions, etc........ As you stated prior, some of it reads fare-fetched... Especially the supernatural parts... A couple of decades of orals tradition(s), accompanied by extreme superstition does things like this...

Oh really? I must have missed it.

No, you just skipped it. I already directed you, as to where you skipped it. "Luke" looks to take direct content from "Mark", in spite of the fact that you claim these reports were independent of one another. "Luke" is merely damage control for the Romans, as the author was obviously aware of how "Mark" made them look. I created an entire thread about it, in your honor, as you have referenced "Luke" quite a lot. You ultimately ducked out.

No, you do not. We know Jesus was a real historical figure.

We know? Hmmm? I'd say it's more likely, but not certain... We also have Jesus in differing places at differing times, depending on which Gospel account you deem most worthy at the time. See my other thread, for which you ducked out from...

We know there were those who claimed to have witnessed him alive after death.

Sure, we have four untrustworthy 'books'. I already explained in the other thread, dedicated to you.

We know that Paul was opposed to Christianity, we know Paul converted, we know that Paul goes on to be the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time, we know that Paul went to prison for what he was proclaiming, we also know that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced these earliest followers were truly convinced in what they were reporting. Please give us some sort of explanation for all these things we can know which would be likely.

Yes, Paul is responsible for over 40% of the "NT". The rest, who really knows?