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]

...
So you're saying poking sticks in the ground can change the colors or patterns of goats?

Why do you think so?

You're saying people can walk on water?

I believe things went as told in the Bible and you can't prove things didn't went as told in the Bible.

Burning bushes can speak?

Why do you think it was the bush, not the God?

How bout dead folks hopping up, where you at on that?

How can they be called dead, if they hop?

[1213]

...
It becomes pointless to say that it has been demonstrated that the Bible does contain errors as True Believers simply brush it off and encourage a chase down the rabbit hole by demanding endless repetition of the evidence that simply gets denied.

Only thing you can show is bad interpretations or "facts" that can't be proven correct. Neither of them can prove Bible wrong. But, i understand you don't believe what the Bible tells and you may believe it has errors. That is just your subjective opinion.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
So you're saying poking sticks in the ground can change the colors or patterns of goats?

Why do you think so?

I don't, but the bible claims it happened.

You're saying people can walk on water?

I believe things went as told in the Bible and you can't prove things didn't went as told in the Bible.

There's never been a confirmed case of anyone walking on water, so there's that.

Burning bushes can speak?

Why do you think it was the bush, not the God?

So you're saying a god you can't show exists did a thing ya can't show he did?

How bout dead folks hopping up, where you at on that?

How can they be called dead, if they hop?

According to biblical tales, Jesus hopped up after being dead for three days.

Do you contend dead folks can hop up after being dead for three days

[brunumb]

...
It becomes pointless to say that it has been demonstrated that the Bible does contain errors as True Believers simply brush it off and encourage a chase down the rabbit hole by demanding endless repetition of the evidence that simply gets denied.

Only thing you can show is bad interpretations or "facts" that can't be proven correct. Neither of them can prove Bible wrong. But, i understand you don't believe what the Bible tells and you may believe it has errors. That is just your subjective opinion.

I understand you believe what the Bible tells and you may believe it has no errors. That is just your subjective opinion.

[tam]

Peace to you,

For discussion:
Do you believe the bible is infallible or not?

Not.

Why or why not? How did you come to this belief?

From another thread (though I think it addresses all the points you raised):

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

May you have peace!


I have not read through the entire thread. I am going to address the question of the OP.


Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?


There are actually a couple/few questions here. Is the Bible inerrant? Is the Bible the Word of God? Is the Word of God inerrant?

Is the Bible inerrant?


The bible makes no claim to be inerrant, despite what religion has taught.

2Timothy 3:16 is Paul speaking about scripture being inspired and useful for certain things. But inspired means that something is given "in spirit". So the prophets to whom the Word of God came, wrote down what they were given 'in spirit'. John (of Patmos) was in the spirit when he was given the Revelation, and John was told to write down what he saw and heard while in the spirit. On the other hand, Luke wrote down what he investigated from others who were eyewitnesses (and from things he witnessed himself on his journeys with Paul).

Paul even made some mistakes at the start. He did not just have his conversion and all of a sudden he know everything there is to know about everything. He had to learn ... the same as WE do... from the Teacher. Paul got up and started to work as a servant right away, that is true, but he still had baggage he was carrying from his days as a Pharisee. This is why he at first taught the Corinthians TO judge (in his second letter to them, we don't have his first letter), but later we can see that he learned the truth from Christ, NOT to judge.

Paul at first:

What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.� 1 Corinthians 5:13



No! Paul is wrong here. We are not to judge anyone - inside or outside! If we have learned from Christ then we will know this, because that is what HE taught.


Do not judge, or you will be judged.



So Paul had to learn, and he DID learn, because he later says this:

Therefore let us stop judging one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. Romans 14:13




So the bible is not inerrant and makes no claim to be so. Even scripture is subject to the erring pen of the scribes (Jeremiah 8:8) - copyists, secretaries, translators who did not understand and so did not always remain accurate in their transcribing and translating. The doctrine that it is inerrant is a doctrine and tradition of men, and people have built their faith upon IT (the doctrine and the bible), instead of upon the TRUE Word of God.



Is the Bible the Word of God and is the Word of God inerrant?


Man has also taught that the Bible is the Word of God... and if one believes this teaching, then I guess I can understand why those ones would fight to defend the doctrine of biblical inerrency. How can the Word of God be errant?


But the teaching that the Bible is the Word of God is also a false teaching (not even biblical). The Bible is not the Word of God. The Word of God is ALIVE. Does it not make sense that the Living God - who has a living image - also has a living Word?


The Word of God is Christ. (Who among those who profess to be His disciples would even argue against this?) And He is the Word of God who is without sin... AKA... without ERROR.



Not the Bible.

Christ Jaheshua, Himself.




May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear so as to know the truth of this matter FROM the Truth (Christ Jaheshua). May anyone who wishes also hear as the Spirit and the Bride SAY, "Come! Take the FREE gift of the water of Life."



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

viewtopic.php?p=927265#p927265


Peace again to you.

[benchwarmer]

… some of the things in the bible aren't true and there are contradictions (multiple links provided to you earlier which you ignored) no matter what you 'wish' to believe.

Sorry, I thought it is not reasonable to take all the issues here, would be very, very long post. But, when I look at them, there is nothing that proves Bible wrong. If you disagree, please sow the worst case for the Bible.

This may not be the WORST case for the Bible, but it is a clear cut case. Who is Jesus's human grandfather? Jacob or Heli?

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

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah

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

23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

The usual apologetic for this (which falls flat and is proved wrong by the very text above) is that one genealogy is for Joseph and one for Mary. People who make this apology obviously hope you don't just read the passage and notice the words "Jacob father of Joseph" or "Joseph son of Heli". Joseph cannot be the son of both Jacob and Heli. QED.

This wikipedia page gives a nice side by side graphic showing where the genealogies match and differ:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy ... enealogies

Even if this was the only contradiction in the Bible, it only takes one to show the Bible is NOT inerrant.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well observed. Yes the two different genealogies (one through a collateral line from Solomon, as I recall, and one through a Persian appointee to the Judea satrapy, Zurubabbel, from Babylon) and both end with Joseph, no question. Yet again one is left wondering 'Don't they know? Or do they hope that nobody else knows? The excuse that one is the line of Mary is just that - an excuse, or hardly that. It is a lie, frankly, and at best one can only argue that it was supposed to be through Mary, but got mistakenly attributed to Joseph.

That would be (if we bought it) a human error that could be shrugged off and Biblical Inerrancy, or at least Authority through reliability of the Bible could be maintained.

But it's like I say about ...what...? .let's think of a not -too - strong one... My Nongodd...I had to reject a few before I found one that could be explained away half convincingly... at the arrest at Gethsemane, in all four gospels, one of those with Jesus cuts off the ear of the slave of the High priest. I was going to give as an example Jesus healing the ear in Luke since nobody else has that. but on second thoughts I think it can be discarded as Luke not being able to resist adding it as why would the other three not bother to mention that remarkable and compassionate act? It has to be yet another of many many Lucan additions....No, I'll go for John revealing that the name of the slave was Malchus and it was Peter (Simon, AkA Cephas) who struck the blow.

Now it is a no-brainer that nobody else but John mentions the name of the slave, because even if they knew it it wasn't important. But they must have known that Peter struck the blow. Well putting on my Christian apologetics hat I could argue that it embarrassed them rather that it was Peter who did the deed. But that's a bit odd as Peter often comes up as over -eager but inadequate, as in trying to walk on water but sinking, protesting at Jesus prediction of death and Jesus slapping him down, and of course denying him thrice. Would they Really shrink from him showing how eager he was to defend Jesus and Jesus rebuking him?

No, no, friends, I don't think that washes. I think it might open the lid of the wormcan a bit less to say that John just said it was Peter without any good basis for it. Not so good for John's integrity but maybe the better option. Of course there are other apologetics methods .. (denial) ..but I won't go into those. I'll just say that this is a minor discrepancy that isn't as tough as most, but even then it can cause a niggle of doubt. At least to me posing as a theist able to have doubts and questions. The other kind, I cannot imagine their thought -processes.

[otseng]

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?

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

It depends on how one defines inerrancy and infallibility. I view infallibility as the Bible being trustworthy and authoritative. Inerrancy is every word of the autographs is without error. I hold to the Bible being infallible, but not inerrant. I argued for this in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.

I'll summarize my arguments...

I argue it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative.

The layperson view of inerrancy is the Bible is without any errors. They typically mean a Bible translation and are not thinking of the autographs. However, this is not how it is defined. The Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy, considered the authoritative view on inerrancy, says inerrancy only applies to the autographs.

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture,"
http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- ... -inerrancy

More sources affirms this definition.

I could find only a couple of groups that defines inerrancy without qualification.

It is widely accepted the translations have errors in them. At a minimum they have copyist errors. One of the top proponents of inerrancy, Norman Geisler, also acknowledges this.

So, Bible translations can be considered authoritative without being inerrant.

There is no general consensus of what inerrancy is. And definitions generally include many clauses to them.

Inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar.
Inerrancy does not exclude the use either of figures of speech or of a given literary genre.
Inerrancy does not demand historical or semantic precision.
Inerrancy does not demand the technical language of modern science.
Inerrancy does not require verbal exactness in the citation of the Old Testament by the New.
Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice).
Inerrancy does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account or of combined accounts where those are involved.
Inerrancy does not demand the infallibility or inerrancy of the noninspired sources used by biblical writers.

https://www.efca.org/blog/understanding ... -inerrancy

First, as we noted above, the Bible's view of inspiration is not a sort of mechanical "dictation theory."
Second, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require that we impose upon the Bible standards of accuracy and evaluation that are alien to it.
Third, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require the Bible to have been transmitted without mistakes in the copying process.
Fourth, when properly understood the doctrine of inerrancy does not entail the necessity of rational proof that the Bible is without error.
Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion.

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a ... debate.php

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- ... -inerrancy

These exceptions are like the addition of epicycles in Greek cosmology to hold their theory together. This hints at special pleading and points to incorrect assumptions.

The term "inerrancy" doesn't work because, in the words of Roger Olson, the very definition of the word succumbs to "the death of a thousand qualifications."

https://www.missioalliance.org/why-bibl ... esnt-work/

One common qualification to inerrancy is that the Bible must be correctly interpreted. But, who has the "correct" interpretation of the Bible?

There are several Christian denominations that do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy. Fuller theological seminary, a conservative evangelical seminary, has a nuanced view of inerrancy. They seem to reject it on one hand, but is not willing to abandon the term.

There are also several apologists that do not place a high value on the doctrine of inerrancy, including William Lane Craig and C.S. Lewis. Biblical scholar, N.T. Wright is not an inerrantist. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer also rejected inerrancy. However, all of these men have a high view of scripture.

"Bonhoeffer did not believe in biblical inerrancy, but followed Karl Barth's view that Scripture is true, even if it is not empirically accurate."
https://www.equip.org/article/troubling ... -theology/

The primary proof text of the doctrine is 2 Timothy 3:16. I argue it is weak support for inerrancy. Another proof text is 2 Peter 1:21. I argue it is a stretch to use this to support inerrancy of the Bible.

The doctrine is also divisive and potentially damaging.

So, I believe the term inerrancy should no longer be used. It is a term that is misused, misunderstood, full of qualifications, meaningless, unnecessary, divisive, and damaging. It is time to jettison the doctrine of inerrancy.

[benchwarmer]

It depends on how one defines inerrancy and infallibility. I view infallibility as the Bible being trustworthy and authoritative. Inerrancy is every word of the autographs is without error. I hold to the Bible being infallible, but not inerrant. I argued for this in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.

I had to look up what is meant by 'autograph'. I found the following which seems to imply there is some controversy here. What do you mean by 'autograph'?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... e-mean.cfm

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE TERM, “AUTOGRAPH OF SCRIPTURE” MEAN?
The Words of the Bible – Question 10

We must be clear as to what we mean when we are speaking about the autograph of a biblical book. There is some confusion, as well as some controversy, as to what exactly the autograph consisted of.

The Autograph Was the Authors’ Original Work
The usual way of describing an autograph of Scripture is the finished work of the author that was sent out to others. It is only this final work that was sent out that can be called the autograph. This could be called the “published edition.”

If I assume (until possibly corrected by you) that it means 'original published work', then we (collectively) have an issue. We don't have the original, published works. We only have copies of copies of copies, etc.

So, maybe this is what you are saying, talking about inerrancy is pointless because the only thing that would have been inerrant was the original which we don't have. What we do have is known to have errors due to copying, insertions, etc.

I have no issue granting this and switching to debate on 'trustworthy and authoritative'. However, I fail to see how we could establish any written work as 'trustworthy and authoritative' when we don't know the provenance of the words in the work. How can we trust something that may have very important words missing or changed? How can we figure out what was in the original?

The other issue is, 'trustworthy and authoritative' for what? Clearly not for learning who was the human grandfather of Jesus as pointed out in my previous reply above. We have an obvious error here and we can't trust either set of information now because they are different and have no way to know why. In fact, both could be wrong.

[otseng]

If I assume (until possibly corrected by you) that it means 'original published work', then we (collectively) have an issue. We don't have the original, published works. We only have copies of copies of copies, etc.

So, maybe this is what you are saying, talking about inerrancy is pointless because the only thing that would have been inerrant was the original which we don't have. What we do have is known to have errors due to copying, insertions, etc.

Yes, that's my point, we don't have the original texts of the Bible. According to The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which is the statement which practically all inerrancy proponents subscribe to, it states:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So, inerrancy only applies to the original (autographs) and it especially does not apply to translations.

I have no issue granting this and switching to debate on 'trustworthy and authoritative'. However, I fail to see how we could establish any written work as 'trustworthy and authoritative' when we don't know the provenance of the words in the work. How can we trust something that may have very important words missing or changed? How can we figure out what was in the original?

In terms of the textual variants of the manuscripts, they aren't really a big deal. Most are minor differences and non affect major doctrines. You can view the NT textual variants and judge for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_v ... _Testament

So, even though all we have are copies, we can have a reasonably high degree of confidence what the autographs would be.

The other issue is, 'trustworthy and authoritative' for what? Clearly not for learning who was the human grandfather of Jesus as pointed out in my previous reply above. We have an obvious error here and we can't trust either set of information now because they are different and have no way to know why. In fact, both could be wrong.

Trustworthy and authoritative for Christian doctrine, belief, and practices.

Yes, one can read the Bible superficially and easily point out "errors", but it's not quite so simple. It requires more digging and more study to understand it. Here is a good series to start on having a more deeper understanding of the Bible by professor Ken Schenck:


The genealogy of Jesus was not meant to be a comprehensive list of his ancestors. Schenck briefly talks about the genealogy in Matthew here. But, even if the genealogy was wrong, how would it affect any doctrine? The only thing it would affect is inerrancy (which I don't subscribe to).