On the Bible being inerrant.

[nobspeople]

I came across a post the other day as follows:
"My argument doesn’t rely on the Bible being inerrant."
It has meaning in the context of that discussion, of which I wasn't privy. But it got me thinking:

Does (or should, if you wish) a christian believe the bible is inerrant?

There seems to be a couple camps on the subject:
1) A christian should believe the bible is 100% true and accurate in every way
1a) This seems to indicate the bible was 'god written' (by whatever means you think necessary)
2) A christian should believe the bible is capable of being wrong or inaccurate
2a) This seems to indicate the bible may or may not have been 'god inspired'
2a1) To what extent is it god inspired and when do you know it is and when it isn't?
2b) To what percentage is the bible capable of being wrong or inaccurate?
3) A christian should be able to pick-n-choose their beliefs when they fit their chosen lifestyle agenda (this seems to be a popular choice for obvious reasons)

For discussion:
Do you believe the bible is infallible or not?
Why or why not?
How did you come to this belief?

NOTE: This should be about one's belief and why, not taken as a challenge to 'prove' the bible is or isn't correct and or devoid of errors, contradictions, lies or ½ truths.

[1213]

...You are of course welcome to that opinion, but it makes no sense. Why would an author give an incomplete list ...?

It is possible that he gives what he knew, or that the text we have has been slightly damaged so that not all names survived.

It would be nice to know, what Matthew means with the “book of the generation of Jesus”. It could mean that there was a book about generations and what Matthew is telling, is not necessary the direct lineage, but about generations.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ [Christ (Greek) and Messiah (Hebrew) both mean "Anointed One"], the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers… … So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.
Matt. 1:1-2,17

Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
Luke 3:23-24

1) Giving the list in the first place is useless because Jesus is supposedly the son of God, not Joseph! BOTH genealogies should in fact be for Mary because Jesus only has a blood relation to her, not Joseph. However, showing maternal lineage does not 'count' apparently, so the authors went with a paternal lineage to try and make their point. In other words, BOTH genealogies are in fact yet another contradiction. i.e. the father of Jesus is supposed to be God, not Joseph.
...

I have understood that the point is to show Jesus was born to the "house of David", not that he is direct offspring.

And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David
Luke 1:69

[TRANSPONDER]

The 'seven last words' sums up rather nicely the way that that Bible believers and non -believers approach apparent discrepancies in the Bible.

The evidence, looked at squarely, is that the gospels disagree on what Jesus said on the cross.

Mark and Matthew have that quotation from Psalms 22.1 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Luke has 'Into your hands I commend my spirit'.

John, 'It is finished!'.

We all know, don't we, that Christianity argued that Jesus said all of that and the gospels report this bit or that bit that this or that listener heard, or perhaps they thought that only one remark was significant. Gospel apologetics 'weave them together' and disregard the improbability of someone there hearing it all and not reporting it all.

We will get (if we persist in the questions rather than just accepting the above apologetic) the claim that the fact that they disagree is evidence tat they are telling the truth, as if they were lying, they'd surely have agreed on the same story.

In fact, we do get evidence that the stynoptics were repeating the same words in the same order in some section of their material, even the same connecting comments. To a lesser extent it looks like all four gospels are using one story, but John disagrees that bit more.

But under the circumstance, how could one or more listener hear the last words and not repeat all of them?

Another apologetic is 'oral tradition' with some useful references to how the Jews had developed a method of remembering and passing on accurate script and stories almost to the letter. Another apologetics excuse (for how the writers knew what Caiaphas and his cronies had discussed in John 11. 47) argues that some informer or one who later converted and gave the inside information or otherwise provided this information.

Or of course, Jesus himself, or otherwise how the heck do the disciples know what Jesus prayed n the garden when they were asleep? Even I can explain that one - 'they just heard the first bit before they dropped off''.

Very well, but then the explanation that this writer knew this and another knew that doesn't work. They should all have known everything, at least the important things.

So why the difference in the seven last words? The believer has a number of options. They can pick the apologetic that suits and forget the other that undermines it. They can 'make something up': rewrite the events so that it works. We saw a nice effort here to rewrite resurrection - day to iron out the discrepancies, for example by having Luke's bunch of ladies at the tomb split up so that some could run into Jesus and some not. Then Mary could come back and report the angelic message, but not seeing Jesus on the way, and Cleophas leaves before the other women come back and say they did see Jesus.

Yep, that works, except how could the writers not know that Jesus had popped up when the women were running to report the empty tomb? It only works in the 'reporters' notebook' apologetc, so that each 'eyewitness'reports in their own words what they saw and they have never heard (or they never write about) what they must all have found out later on.

They must have known. About the birth in Bethlehem, about that declaration in the temple, about the healing on the centurion's slave (and how could they have got that in a different town?) the sermon on the mount (oh yes, Mark and John have never heard of it), the transfiguration, the cursing of the fig -tree, the penitent thief, the spear -thrust, the raising of Lazarus and the death of Judas and all the many, many discrepancies in the resurrection accounts.

I've gone on long enough, but surely enough to guess why these are being overlooked. For near 2,000 years, Believers have either not known about these contradictions, or have known and dismissed them.

They rely on the doubters not knowing this stuff. Questioners can be fobbed off with one or other excuse. The rest can be ignored or silenced.

And I really have gone on too long because I haven't time to pursue the option of picking Mark and Matthew (who tell the same tale and give the aramaic words, too) and supposing that Luke and John were telling tall tales. But that is too large a can of worms to open here.

[DeMotts]

1213's general argument seems to be that the bible is divinely inspired and completely inerrant but also written by humans who make mistakes all the time, give contradictory accounts, and leave things out for their own reasons or ignorance.

[brunumb]

1213's general argument seems to be that the bible is divinely inspired and completely inerrant but also written by humans who make mistakes all the time, give contradictory accounts, and leave things out for their own reasons or ignorance.

To me, those two positions seem to be mutually exclusive.

[otseng]

1213's general argument seems to be that the bible is divinely inspired and completely inerrant but also written by humans who make mistakes all the time, give contradictory accounts, and leave things out for their own reasons or ignorance.

To me, those two positions seem to be mutually exclusive.

Scratch out "completely inerrant" and I would say it would not be mutually exclusive. The Bible can be divinely inspired and yet also be "written by humans who make mistakes all the time, give contradictory accounts, and leave things out for their own reasons or ignorance". And I would add this is how God works with people. We all have flaws and shortcomings. Yet God can still work through us in spite of our imperfections. The authors of the Bible were far from perfect. Why should we expect them to magically turn on the perfection switch when they wrote scripture? I believe they were still themselves with all their frailty when they wrote. Yet, God can still work through their weaknesses to produce a divine work.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to otseng in post #55]

The Bible can be divinely inspired and yet also be "written by humans who make mistakes all the time, give contradictory accounts, and leave things out for their own reasons or ignorance".

Absolutely. And this would make the most sense if we stay in the camp of god. But why would god allow this? It creates doubt, division. It doesn't impart faith or instill knowledge. If god is loving and wants all his creation to get to heaven, this is counter to that ideal.

We all have flaws and shortcomings. Yet God can still work through us in spite of our imperfections.

One would think. But that's not what's happening with christianity throughout history, when it comes to this subject. Branches split, arguments happen over minutia, people leave the faith because of it, and on and on.

Why should we expect them to magically turn on the perfection switch when they wrote scripture?

I don't think most anyone expects this. But if god was working with them (inspired, if one wishes) god could have been able to make sure there were no errors, contradictions, omissions. Yet this isn't happening.

So, instead of making excuses for god and the faith like christians do ad nauseam, there's a few options that I can see:
god could, but didn't, have the story written without errors, omissions, contradictions (one would then wonder why, as this creates doubts and doesn't foster faith);
god couldn't have the story written without errors, omissions, contradictions (which would cause one to wonder if god's not able, is it worth our time);
god wasn't involved at all or god doesn't exist at all.

Yet, God can still work through their weaknesses to produce a divine work.

If a story written with contradictions, errors, omission and confusion is divine, I need to write another book.

[DeMotts]

I can accept the viewpoint that the bible is a divinely inspired work with parables and allegories designed to teach lessons, mixed with the written history of a bronze age people, and the authors "did their best" and felt divinely inspired to do so. I don't agree with this view but I can accept that someone holds this view.

The idea that the bible is an infallible moral compass with literal true stories of global catastrophe and people getting eaten by fish and slavery being acceptable in certain situations etc. is not sensible to me.

[benchwarmer]

#1 The genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17 vs Luke 3:23-38).
#2 God needs to rest or not? (Isaiah 40:28 vs Exodus 31:17)
#3 Man can see God or not? (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18)
#4 What were Jesus's last words? (Mark 15:34 vs Luke 23:46 vs John 19:28)

Next up:

#5 How many animals did Jesus ride on into Jerusalem? (Mark 11 1:7 vs Matthew 21 1:7)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NRSV

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, ‘The Lord needs them.’ And he will send them immediately.[a]” 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,

5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

* Clear case of the author of Matthew not understanding the literature style of the prophesy he was trying to make come true (or how to ride animals LOL!). He went literal instead of the likely intended emphasis denoted by repeating the same thing. Oh well, the author of Mark seemed to get it.

[1213]

... the gospels disagree on what Jesus said on the cross.

Mark and Matthew have that quotation from Psalms 22.1 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'

Luke has 'Into your hands I commend my spirit'.

John, 'It is finished!'.
...

Why do you think it is not possible that he said all of those? Because all Gospels don't mention all of the words? I don't think that is a good reason. If they are witness testimonies, it is easily possible that people remember and notice different things. And then, when they report them, the stories tell small part of a bigger picture. There is no intelligent reason to think the stories can't be true at the same time.

[Eloi]

Jesus believed that the Bible did not contain errors.

He regarded the Scriptures as a document whose formal declarations could never be annulled (John 10:35). For him the Scriptures (which includes three parts: the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets _ Luke 24:44) were the truth and absolutely necessary in order to be "sanctified" (John 17:17).

Modern Jehovah's Witnesses view the Scriptures in the same way as Jesus, and that includes the inspired writings that later became part of the canon of Christian writings (Compare to 2 Pet. 3:15,16).

2 Tim. 2:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

It would be impossible for Paul to say these things about the inspired Scriptures if there were errors in them. How then could it be someone "fully competent, completely equipped for every good work" or "setting things straight"? What kind of "righteous discipline" could be applied based on the Scriptures if they contained errors in their formal statements? God's justice is not like that of humans ... that's why in some other comment I compared to be a lawyer and adjust to the references in the law books and previous cases to judge current cases ... There is no just law without a reliable document. The Bible contains the information necessary to learn God's point of view on the issues we need to understand for our salvation.

Rom. 5:4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.

1 Cor. 10:11 Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have come.