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.

[Miles]

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.

The problem of course is that there are no known autographic text of Scripture. Only fragments that may have been autographic, with virtually all pieces of manuscript dating hundreds of years CE.

From the Wikipedia page: "List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts."

"Masorah manuscripts

Proto-Masoretic from Second Temple period (516 BCE and 70 CE,)

Severus Scroll (named for the Roman Emperor who restored this scroll, reportedly seized from the Temple in Jerusalem, to the Jewish community in 220), a lost manuscript of early 1st century CE, only a few sentences are preserved by Rabbinic literature

Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus scroll ["11QpaleoLev consists of miscellaneous, useless bits; fifteen fragments, one of which remains unidentified; and one scroll of seven columns, the last of which is incomplete." (source)]

Proto-Masoretic from "Silent Period" (2nd-10th century)

Codex Hilleli, a lost manuscript of circa 600 CE, destroyed in 1197 in Spain, only a few sentences are preserved by Rabbinic literature[9]

Codex Muggeh (or Muga; ="corrected"), lost, cited as a source in Masoretic notations.

Masoretic (7th–10th century)

Ben Asher Manuscripts, including several of those listed here-below (see Kahle)
The London Manuscript and the Ashkar-Gilson Manuscript, the latter also known as the "Ashkar-Gilson Hebrew Manuscript #2", both from the same scroll, dated to the 7th or 8th century.[10] The extant fragments cover Exodus 9:18–13:2 and 13:19–16:1.[11]
Codex Orientales 4445, also known as "London Codex",[12] containing Genesis-Deuteronomy 1:33 (less Numbers 7:47–73 and Numbers 9:12–10:18).[13] and dated by colophon to 920-950 CE.[14]
Codex Cairensis (Prophets), pointed by Moses Ben Asher, dated by a colophon 895 CE, contradicted by radiocarbon dating, which indicated an 11th-century date. It is the oldest manuscript bearing the date of its writing; was in Cairo, now in Jerusalem.
Codex Babylonicus Petropolitanus (Latter Prophets), dated 916 CE, Russian National Library
Aleppo Codex, 930 CE, Israel Museum, (was complete, supposedly pointed by Aaron Ben Asher, partially missing since 1958); this manuscript is the basis of the Jerusalem Crown bible.
Codex Leningradensis (complete), copied from a Ben Asher manuscript, dated 1008 CE, Russian National Library; this manuscript is the basis of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and other editions.
Michigan Codex (Torah), 10th century[15]
Damascus Pentateuch, 10th century[16]
First Gaster Bible in the British Library, 10th century

Later (11th-17th century)

Codex Yerushalmi, lost, reportedly used in Spain (circa 1010) by Jonah ibn Janah.
Codex Reuchlinanus (Prophets), dated 1105 CE.
Scroll 2, dated CE 1155-1255, University of Bologna Library
etc.
etc.

Of course New Testament manuscripts could be said to fare a bit better, although it's doubtful any are autographic, with only a few small, tattered fragments of Matthew and John dated to the mid 2nd century CE. With the exception of several, up to 124 fairly intact pages that date to 600-700CE, the bulk of later finds, 300 - 700 CE, consists of no more than a few fragments each,

All in all, present day bibles are plagued by reinterpretations, re-translations, and biased rewritings. None of which, I'm willing to bet, comes close to resembling the autographic scripture, Simply look at how present day Bibles fail to agree on what god does in Isaiah 45:7

Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

OR: I, depending on the Bible version, create

disaster
doom
woe
sorrow
trouble
calamity
trouble(s)
bad
discord
hard times
bad times
adversity

.

[otseng]

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

The problem of course is that there are no known autographic text of Scripture. Only fragments that may have been autographic, with virtually all pieces of manuscript dating hundreds of years CE.

Precisely my point. It's safe to say we don't have any autographs of the Bible. So, in my opinion, it's meaningless to even debate about inerrancy since we're debating about something we all agree we have no way to get our hands on.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's why i have always thought that we we are fortunate in having four gospels (five, if one counts Peter) to compare. And equally so in the Qumran scrolls that give a very useful check against the Mazoretic texts.

[Miles]

It's why i have always thought that we we are fortunate in having four gospels (five, if one counts Peter) to compare. And equally so in the Qumran scrolls that give a very useful check against the Mazoretic texts.

Other than their disparities, what do we get out of comparing the four?
And just as a point of information, with the possible exception of one 3 X 4 cm disputed fragment (7Q5) none of the Dead Sea Scrolls were New Testament writings.








AND

............................



THE EMPTY TOMB EPISODE


.................................



,

[1213]

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,

…

Thank you for the brave attempt.

For to have a real contradiction, there must be something that can’t really be true at the same time. For example, relatively clear contradiction is between claims like “sky is always blue, never red for all” and “sky is never blue, always red for all”.

There is really no proof Matthew and Luke are making contradictory claims, because it is possible that Matthew is just missing some people and people have usually two or more names. For example, it could be that Jacob was also called Heli.

Obviously, I understand that you may not like this, or agree that it is so. My point is only to show that the differences can’t be proven to be a real contradiction in the Bible.

Interesting detail is also that Matthew is speaking of the book of generation. It may be that he is reporting correctly about the book, but that book maybe little different matter than what Luke is speaking of.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matt. 1:1

[1213]

...
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.

I don’t think that is what Bible is really claiming. So, please show the scripture where you think that is said?

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?

I can’t show anything from history, because I have no time machine. And even if I would have, one could claim it is fake.

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

But when he hopped, he was alive, not dead, if we believe what the Bible tells.

I believe it is possible that person comes back to life from death.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's why i have always thought that we we are fortunate in having four gospels (five, if one counts Peter) to compare. And equally so in the Qumran scrolls that give a very useful check against the Mazoretic texts.

Other than their disparities, what do we get out of comparing the four?
And just as a point of information, with the possible exception of one 3 X 4 cm disputed fragment (7Q5) none of the Dead Sea Scrolls were New Testament writings.








AND

............................



THE EMPTY TOMB EPISODE


.................................



,

Thank you. The first two charts rather illustrate the misdirection practiced by Gospel apologists. They focus on irrelevancies like the different jobs they did or what aspect of Jesus' teachings the Gospel focuses on. It does not cross - examine the witnesses to see whether their testimony is reliable.

Even then, we see an evolution of Jesus from the Pauline man sacrificed by God in Mark to John's damn' near Christian God in person.

The chart on the resurrection does note the discrepancy between Matthew and Luke on whether the women saw Jesus or not, but doesn't make anything of it. And I've seen plenty of apologetics trying to explain or excuse it, none of which really work. That, taken with the appearance to Simon (which is noted, good for them, but see below) can be argued to be:

(a) Matthew popping in an appearance of Jesus before the women report back to the disciples, that none of the others know about, and:

(b) Luke smuggling in Paul's 'appearance first to Simon' that nobody knows about, including Luke, because he doesn't describe it.

I like how the chart tries to gloss over the appearance to Simon, by trying to suggest that this is supported by John. Jesus doesn't appear to Simon in John though the fact that he was there is apparently supposed to be close enough. (1)

We don't learn much from those charts because they aren't intended to raise questions, much.

I mentioned Qumran as a similar sort of check on the OT as we have it, but there's the Septuagint, too and that can be revealing when we are looking at NT quotes of the OT. I already showed how Matthew and Luke scramble the OT prophecies to screw prophecies of Luke's death out of them. We hear nothing of that from those charts, nor indeed from any of the Bible -apologists. You'll need a few of us Questioners for that.

(1) Cue ..make some something up...'Well maybe Jesus appeared to Simon after he'd appeared to Mary', though according to Matthew, she'd already met him before she ran to the disciples. That sort of apologetic (if it was used...the Christian apologists will never get to that unless we unbelievers raise the matter ) is very common, but trips over the 'campfire tales' apologetic which argues that the disciples (and later converts) all discussed Jesus' doings, so they all knew about what he'd done and what the disciples had seen, and even what the Sanhedrin had discussed in private.

[TRANSPONDER]

first 'erratum'I meants Matthew and Luke's propcies of the death of Judas, not 'Luke'. I'm always missing slips like that

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.

The whole 'inerrancy' thing in a nicely misdirecting debate into what it is and what it means so that we don't look at what the errors are. In fact, oddly like 'God', it depends not on what the unbelievers mean but what the believers mean. Let them tell us what 'inerrancy' or indeed 'God's word' means to them (as in what 'God' means to them) and we'll consider that aspect.

(a) 'God's unaltered word, cover to cover'. Starting out there, it pretty soon becomes ' God's word inspired to the writers and any mistakes are their fault, not God's'.

(b) the work of Men, sure, but broadly what they wrote was true. And inspired by God, of course.

(c) even if it isn't factually true, it's true Metaphorically, and of course, Inspired by God.

Right from the start (1990's) I saw that just listing discrepancies got us nowhere. The significance of them had to be pointed up and of course the real sinkhole errors picked out rather than disagreement about what colour hats Samuel was wearing.

While the OT has some good 'uns it's mainly about Genesis -literalism and prophecies. Which is about as far as my interest in the OT goes. Because Christian apologists can play the New Covenant card any time they run into trouble.
'Jesus made everything New'

So where the Christian apologists seem to start is with nothing in the OT is valid Now, unless Jesus endorses it. And one thing that Jesus doesn't endorse is the Sabbath. In fact he says 'don't bother with it'. Do some good. Do some jobs around the house, go for a walk with a packed lunch'. Funny how for 2,000 years, the ones who prided themselves on having the Bible by heart never noticed that one. Nor a lot of the others.

Well, we'll bring them to there attention. You can bet on that.

[benchwarmer]

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,

…

Thank you for the brave attempt.

It wasn't meant to be brave, simply reading the written word.

For to have a real contradiction, there must be something that can’t really be true at the same time. For example, relatively clear contradiction is between claims like “sky is always blue, never red for all” and “sky is never blue, always red for all”.

There is really no proof Matthew and Luke are making contradictory claims, because it is possible that Matthew is just missing some people and people have usually two or more names. For example, it could be that Jacob was also called Heli.

Thank you for the tap dancing. The "missing some people" doesn't wash when I asked about Jesus's grandfather. The only missing person could be Joseph and his name is written right there.

The "Jacob was also called Heli" sounds like blatant denial. If you are going to go down that road, then EVERY name in the Bible must now be taken as it could mean someone else. Maybe Jesus mentioned on one gospel is actually Simon from another one. Do you really want to set that precedent? Go ahead, it only further destroys your case.

Obviously, I understand that you may not like this, or agree that it is so. My point is only to show that the differences can’t be proven to be a real contradiction in the Bible.

Using that tactic, nothing could ever be proven to your satisfaction because you seem happy to redefine words when it suits you. Enjoy, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

What I believe at this point to be the most obvious answer to the genealogy question is essentially stated right at the beginning of Luke:

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

1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

What I take from that is the author is saying they have researched the previous writings and are now going to tell 'the truth' as if there were some errors in the previous writings. Otherwise, why bother, just tell them to read the previous writings.

If one bothers to go look at the nice chart I referenced, it's easy to see that the genealogies diverge and line up at multiple spots. This would be statistically impossible if we are dealing with Joseph's line and Mary's line. What seems to be going on is we have two authors trying to fulfill prophesy by getting Jesus to be born under the 'right' people. When one takes off the rose colored glasses and steps back, it's pretty obvious what's going on. One gospel writer is editing and correcting previous writings. The author of Luke basically states this in the first paragraph of his gospel.

[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.

I don’t think that is what Bible is really claiming. So, please show the scripture where you think that is said?

I had it wrong, it's placing em in front of a water trough...

From Bible gateway.com

34 “Agreed,” said Laban. “Let it be as you have said.” 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban’s flocks.

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.

Continuing...

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?

I can’t show anything from history, because I have no time machine. And even if I would have, one could claim it is fake.

Or, it's your inability to show you speak truth that has folks thinking your claims are fake.

But blame your failures on others if it makes ya feel better.

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

But when he hopped, he was alive, not dead, if we believe what the Bible tells.

"If" ain't truth.

I believe it is possible that person comes back to life from death.

Ya just can't show it to be truth.

But hear me out... I absolutely respect that you'd ensure we all know you speak of your beliefs. Really, truth be told, that's all any of us really have, is the belief that what we perceive is accurate, true, and factual.