Diogenes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 10:44 amIf God did not write it (using men) than what is the point of this subtopic, now nearly 1200 posts long?
The point is simply the Bible can be considered authoritative and reliable without the need to accept inerrancy.
A significant part of this thread is simply correcting wrong views of the Bible. In particular, the view that the Bible must be "perfect", God must be omnipotent, it must be written directly by God and everything must literally be true. But, even though "errors" can exist, the major accounts in it are true and aligns with non-Biblical evidence of
Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem,
global flood,
life of Jesus,
origin of languages,
archaeology, and
cosmology.
I agree the errors in the Bible come from men; therefore, why should it be trusted any more than any other book (or sets of books)?
No human work is perfect, yet they can still be considered authoritative and reliable.
Even though it can contain errors, it would be major errors that impact doctrines that are consequential. And nobody yet has offered one in this entire thread.
It seems an equivocation to attribute the work to God, and then say He did not write it or inspire it word for word. Which is it? Can we just blithely say "God inspired it, but the errors are those of men?"
Depends on what you mean by "inspired". Do you mean it to suggest men dictated words from God and wrote the entire Bible?
Apologists fall back on "translation errors," but it seems disingenuous to go back an retranslate every time a new scientific discovery embarrasses the Biblical literalists.
Depends on what you mean by Biblical literalist. I believe in God creating the universe, existence of Adam and Eve, tower of Babel, global flood, Hebrews as slaves in Egypt, Exodus out of Egypt, King David, bodily resurrection of Jesus. So, I consider myself a Biblical literalist to a degree and there's nothing embarrassing about any of these things I listed.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2d Timothy 3:16
Was Paul correct?
Yes, all scripture is "theopneustos" and should be used for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. It does
not say all scripture is scientifically accurate.
That his Word is without error?
Again, this entire thread assumes inerrancy is not true. That means there is no claim the Bible is without error.
