How important is "inerrancy" even?

[gadfly]

I see a lot of discussions here concentrating on the doctrine of inerrancy, to the extent that if the bible can be shown to contain one contradiction (e.g. Proverbs tells us both to answer a fool according to his folly AND to NOT answer a fool according to his folly) then it logically follows that every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected. This "all or none" position is maintained on both sides of the debate, so that the game boils down to skeptics pointing out some apparent contradiction and inerrantists endeavoring to demonstrate how it is not actually a contradiction.

Now the briefest survey of the history of biblical hermeneutics will shows how novel this assumption is. The doctrine of inerrancy was raised up in the 19th c. and came to maturity in the 20th century; the doctrine was mainly an American phenomenon; and it was a reaction against the suggestion that we were descended from apes (apparently inerrantists are comfortable coming from dirt. but apes? How degrading!).

We see then how provincial this doctrine is. The doctrine plays almost no role in British Christianity today. It was apparently not required for 2,000 years of church history, because, as Origen points out, the discrepancies are hardly weighty. Catholicism's doctrine of scripture is closer to Origin's position than to American Evangelical's. It holds that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation"--that is very different from the late doctrine of inerrancy held by American evangelicals.

Q4D: So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity, why are debates here so focused on it? Is it possible to debate the ultimate truths of Christianity without reference to inerrancy?

[Difflugia]

My initial impression is that you were showing off with pedantry.

Weird. My impression of you is that you're trolling us with hyperbole: "if the bible can be shown to contain one contradiction ... then it logically follows that every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected."

For instance, it seems your approach is to read a line, respond combatively, then read a line, respond combatively, but without really attempting to grasp the overall picture and trying to understand where I am coming from.

I can see where you're coming from. That's why I responded the way I did. That's why I'm still responding that way.

You're embarrassed by inerrancy, but you still want the Bible to be meaningful, historically and theologically. You'd like to believe that the reason skeptics disagree with you is that they lump you in with inerrantists rather than because you're wrong on your own. Am I close?

For instance, I have never read any skeptic who has passionately argued that though the Exodus probably did not happen, still David is an historical figure.

How about that Josiah was an historical figure? I don't think the Exodus happened or that David was a real guy, but I think Josiah and Jeremiah were. Is that close enough? Or do I specifically have to believe in someone fictional to be one of the good skeptics?

Again, I have never read any skeptic here who has passionately argued for Jesus' existence, though they denied his miracles.

This conversation took place less than a week ago.

If you can find a skeptic here who has defended claims made by the bible, please report.

And now you've toned down the hyperbole. Your original claim was that skeptics think that "every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected." You're still arguing a non sequitur and a straw man, though. The opposite of inerrancy isn't that everything in the Bible is false and no skeptic has claimed that.

Otherwise, my general impression is that the Bible contains contradictions, therefore it can't be trusted.

That's my impression, too. That doesn't mean none of it's false, but "the Bible says so" is still pretty poor evidence of anything.

But again, I think most readers will know what I was getting at.

We do.

Again, are you showing off?

Just pointing out that we know what you're getting at.

My position??? My position is a question, "How important is inerrancy?"

Your position has nothing to do with the statements made before your question? Do you know what disingenuous means?

Yes. If reading my entire post before responding did not make that obvious, can you please advise on how I could have made that clearer??

By telling us that you were redefining "minority."

[benchwarmer]

Q4D: So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity, why are debates here so focused on it? Is it possible to debate the ultimate truths of Christianity without reference to inerrancy?

First, it would help to define "such a minority position". Do you have some stats? This is what I found with a quick search:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394262/few ... d-god.aspx

The majority of Christians (58%) say the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it is to be taken literally, while 25% say it should be interpreted literally and 16% say it is an ancient book of fables.

While technically a minority, it's still quite a large chunk at 25% in the U.S. where the above poll was taken.

Why are debates here focused on it? Well, debates here are focused on whatever users feel like debating. Topics like inerrancy are quite polarized and both sides have good reasons for wanting to show their position has more merit. If the Bible is inerrant, then some sects of Christianity can claim they are 'right' and it's moral to follow any precepts indicated therein. On the other side, if the Bible contains just one error, then 25% (according to the stats above anyways) have some reckoning/re-evaluating to do in their beliefs. Though it's a minority position, it's quite an important one to many Christians, thus it is debated. This is hardly surprising to me anyways.

As for you last question, yes, it's possible to debate anything. Feel free to start a new topic. However, the base claims of Christianity come from the books in the Bible, so unless you have extrabiblical material to bring to the table to support your position, things will inevitably turn back to "which parts of the Bible are errors/untrue and which aren't.".

Basically, if you want to use the Bible as one of your supports for the claims of Christianity, you will need more than just the Bible to avoid circular reasoning. That's not saying don't use the Bible, it's just you can't expect people to just say "ok, it's in the Bible, must be true" since we know that the Bible is full of errors/contradictions/etc (assuming you aren't an inerrantist anyways and willing to accept what's actually written, modern science, logic, etc.)

[otseng]

Q4D: So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity, why are debates here so focused on it? Is it possible to debate the ultimate truths of Christianity without reference to inerrancy?

As a note, the longest debate thread on this forum is How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?. And it does not assume inerrancy to be true.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to gadfly in post #9]

Moderator Comment



Please refrain from making comments about posters like you do at the start of this post; stick to the issues being discussed. Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[historia]

So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity,

You need to define your position a bit more closely.

it would help to define "such a minority position".

Perhaps I can lend a hand here:

As I understand his argument, gladfly is using the term 'inerrant' in a narrow sense to mean specifically the fundamentalist Protestant position that the Bible is without error not just on matters of faith and practice -- which is sometimes designated as 'infallibility' -- but also on any (when interpreted literally) historical and scientific statements found in the Bible. That distinction is not unproblematic from an historical point of view, but I think there is merit to framing the issue in this way.

It seems to me, too, that gladfly's claim here is less about what individual members of the laity may believe, and more about the stated positions of various churches and denominations worldwide. In so far as the Eastern churches, mainline Protestant churches, and the Roman Catholic Church don't hold to this narrowly-defined 'inerrancy' position -- and they account for 2/3 of all Christians -- we can talk about the specifically fundamentalist conception of 'inerrancy' as a minority position within Christianity.

(To be clear, I'm making a kind of double-move in that argument: counting the size of each denomination based on the number of adherents, but then taking their denominational position over any views of individual members.)

According to Pew, half of American adults that believe that "holy scripture is the Word of God" also believe that it "should be taken literally."

This is what I found with a quick search:

The majority of Christians (58%) say the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it is to be taken literally, while 25% say it should be interpreted literally and 16% say it is an ancient book of fables.

While this information is interesting, I'm not certain that the question posed in these surveys -- about whether the Bible is the Word of God and whether it should be interpreted literally -- necessarily tells us whether the respondent views the Bible as 'inerrant' vs. 'infallible' (or some other position).

These surveys also only include Americans, rather than Christians worldwide. As noted in the OP, 'inerrancy' is more popular among American Protestant churches. So even if we could suss out the distinction between 'inerrancy' and 'infallibility' in these survey responses, it may not tell us about such views in Europe, South America, and elsewhere.

[TRANSPONDER]

So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity,

You need to define your position a bit more closely.

it would help to define "such a minority position".

Perhaps I can lend a hand here:

As I understand his argument, gladfly is using the term 'inerrant' in a narrow sense to mean specifically the fundamentalist Protestant position that the Bible is without error not just on matters of faith and practice -- which is sometimes designated as 'infallibility' -- but also on any (when interpreted literally) historical and scientific statements found in the Bible. That distinction is not unproblematic from an historical point of view, but I think there is merit to framing the issue in this way.

It seems to me, too, that gladfly's claim here is less about what individual members of the laity may believe, and more about the stated positions of various churches and denominations worldwide. In so far as the Eastern churches, mainline Protestant churches, and the Roman Catholic Church don't hold to this narrowly-defined 'inerrancy' position -- and they account for 2/3 of all Christians -- we can talk about the specifically fundamentalist conception of 'inerrancy' as a minority position within Christianity.

(To be clear, I'm making a kind of double-move in that argument: counting the size of each denomination based on the number of adherents, but then taking their denominational position over any views of individual members.)

According to Pew, half of American adults that believe that "holy scripture is the Word of God" also believe that it "should be taken literally."

This is what I found with a quick search:

The majority of Christians (58%) say the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it is to be taken literally, while 25% say it should be interpreted literally and 16% say it is an ancient book of fables.

While this information is interesting, I'm not certain that the question posed in these surveys -- about whether the Bible is the Word of God and whether it should be interpreted literally -- necessarily tells us whether the respondent views the Bible as 'inerrant' vs. 'infallible' (or some other position).

These surveys also only include Americans, rather than Christians worldwide. As noted in the OP, 'inerrancy' is more popular among American Protestant churches. So even if we could suss out the distinction between 'inerrancy' and 'infallibility' in these survey responses, it may not tell us about such views in Europe, South America, and elsewhere.

That is likely right. The whole thing is confused by deliberate confusion designed to confuse so as to evade problems.

Take metaphor or symbolism. While it is true that 'swords into ploughshares is a poetic metaphor, Jonah and the whale is not. If that is claimed as 'metaphorically true', that means 'not true at all'. We are beyond 'no errors' and even 'truth but some mistakes'. We are in the area of a false story that is supposed to tell us some truth, which is just an excuse for being wrong and an evasion of the fact that the Bible is not the place to go to for truth and wisdom.

Inspiration is a faithbased excuse and not a proper argument. Bibletext is no doubt is a comment on human condition, just as the rules on slavery were what the writers back then thought was fair. But it is not a guide for us today and we are better off going to current thought and knowledge, with all its' faults and limits, it is better than ancient thought.

So from inerrant, to 'metaphorically true' by way of 'correct even with some mistakes', or even 'wrong, but telling about a real thing - God' is just wrong. All wrong. And we should not buy any of the inerrancy - to inspired flummery, misdirection and bamboozlement. The whole thing along with all the grades of 'inerrancy' are the Big Lie, designed to con us all.

Or that's where I stand on it

[Difflugia]

Take metaphor or symbolism. While it is true that 'swords into ploughshares is a poetic metaphor, Jonah and the whale is not. If that is claimed as 'metaphorically true', that means 'not true at all'.

I disagree. Jonah specifically is poetic metaphor. It's a late and fictional composition about a prophet that's otherwise barely mentioned. Jonah and Boaz are the same kind of character, plucked from an earlier composition and given a backstory. Jonah is a longer version of the parable of the good Samaritan that is just as true in just the same way. Those that claim that it's inerrant history are wrong, but that doesn't change what Jonah is.

If someone earnestly believes that Tom Sawyer is inerrant history, explaining why it's fiction is not an "attack" on Tom Sawyer and it's not proof that it's "wrong." It does, however, make clear why the Twain inerrantists are wrong.

We are in the area of a false story that is supposed to tell us some truth, which is just an excuse for being wrong and an evasion of the fact that the Bible is not the place to go to for truth and wisdom.

Is this different than fiction? Jonah is fiction and a lot of people think it's not. Do you feel that contemporary fiction is wrong in the same way? Or is Bible fiction different?

As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is what it is and Christianity's wrong about it.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure we are in disagreement at all. I'm sure Jonah is an invented figure and the stories about him are hardly worth serious consideration. Surviving 3 days in a fish' belly...well, ok, but going to Nineveh and getting the Assyrians to Repent...no way.

[Difflugia]

I'm not sure we are in disagreement at all. I'm sure Jonah is an invented figure and the stories about him are hardly worth serious consideration. Surviving 3 days in a fish' belly...well, ok, but going to Nineveh and getting the Assyrians to Repent...no way.

That's not what the story's really about, though, any more than the parable of the good Samaritan is about a man's first aid skills. Jonah's about an Israelite, a prophet of Yahweh no less, that is upset that his enemies repented of their evil ways and God gave them a second chance. Everyone thinks the most important part of Jonah is the fish, but it's actually the bush (or "gourd" in the KJV) in 4:6. Jonah is a moral and theological story, not a historical one. In many ways, Jonah has far more affinity with the New Testament than much of the Old.

The epistles aren't historical, either. They're expositions of theology. Are they true? Does it matter that 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul? There are certainly discussions to which it does matter, but is the theology as it applies to modern Christianity somehow less true if Paul didn't write it?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not sure we are in disagreement at all. I'm sure Jonah is an invented figure and the stories about him are hardly worth serious consideration. Surviving 3 days in a fish' belly...well, ok, but going to Nineveh and getting the Assyrians to Repent...no way.

That's not what the story's really about, though, any more than the parable of the good Samaritan is about a man's first aid skills. Jonah's about an Israelite, a prophet of Yahweh no less, that is upset that his enemies repented of their evil ways and God gave them a second chance. Everyone thinks the most important part of Jonah is the fish, but it's actually the bush (or "gourd" in the KJV) in 4:6. Jonah is a moral and theological story, not a historical one. In many ways, Jonah has far more affinity with the New Testament than much of the Old.

The epistles aren't historical, either. They're expositions of theology. Are they true? Does it matter that 2 Timothy wasn't written by Paul? There are certainly discussions to which it does matter, but is the theology as it applies to modern Christianity somehow less true if Paul didn't write it?

Point taken, But I don't care about Christian theology. No more than I bother about how Klingon law defines war crimes. It is fiction. To me Theology is religious fanfiction, and what matters and all that matters is whether it is historical fact or historical fiction or, if it is a mix, what and where.

e.g I know the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem was true, beyond reasonable doubt. But even if one credited that the Jewish capital was spared, there is real doubt that God deserved the credit. But in fact there is good reason to think the Bible account is polemically tweaked and the Assyrian record actually is nearer the truth.

Point being, I don't care about what was the theological ideology behind tales of Yahweh saving Jerusalem (just that once, of course) all I care about is whether it is (on all evidence) true or not.

So Johah only concerns me in that the 3 days in the fish and even more getting the Assyrians to repent their evil ways (I can hear the raucous Ninevien laughter from 2700 years ago) and theologically as evidence that the story might have been behind the later belief that resurrection happened after 3 days, as in the Gabriel stone and the Talpiot tomb Jonah graffiti.

Evidence, not theology.