Is it important whether or not the Bible is inerrant?

[micatala]

On page 81 of the Biblical Contradictions thread, McCulloch suggested we debate the question of the importance of an alleged revelation from an omnipotent/omniscient God being free from error. THus, this thread.

Obviously many, both apologists and skeptics alike, have made the claim that if the Bible is a revelation from an omniscient God, it necessarily follows that it must be free from error.

I do not wish to bog down this thread with that topic, as that is being debated extensively in the Biblical Contradictions thread.

The question here is why would it be important, especially for believers, that the Bible be 'inerrant', or at least be considered inerrant?


Please remember, 'inerrant' does not mean the same as 'inspired' or 'God-breathed'. If posters wish to argue that being inerrant is desirable or essential in convincing themselves or others that the Bible is 'God-inspired', as I would gather many will, that is within bounds. I would like to avoid debating the converse.

[Cogitoergosum]

Cogo,
Those are discussed in Biblical (so called) "contradictions" thread. I know because all of these guys keep me over there all the time:-)

Biker

Sorry i didn't contribute to that thread but now it is too late for me to join in.

[Confused]

Biker:

You always launch off into a pitting of currently accepted "science" (which historically changes) against Bible (which doesn't).Scientists don't agree alot of the time, SO WHAT. Why is that relevant to,

Might I suggest a book for both you and Micatala: It is called The Language of God by Francis S Collins. Many of you will recognize the author since he not only a HIGHLY RESPECTED scientist, but also the head of the Human Genome Project. In his book he does a phenomenal job in reconciling science and religion outside of using creationism or ID. Of note, he is cited in helping to discover the genetic errors of Cystic Fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Huntingtons disease. He is religious, yet has successfully led the department of the Genome Project into unraveling the hereditary code of life.

Micatala:

On the other hand, almost no one reads the bible in its original languages and so we have translations which most certainly DO change.

Also, regardless of whether the text changes, our understanding of what the text says or means most certainly DOES change. That is part of the point I was making here.

This is very important to the issue. One can define inerrancy in many ways, but the bottom line is that with time, society changes. As society changes, so does its values and interpretations of the universe around it. As this happens, our interpretation into what the bible says can easily be understood in a different manner. Would we have so many denominations of Christianity if everyone interpreted the bible the same? So which is correct. Obviously, these differences in interpretations are significant enough to warrant an entirely new denomination to form: Lutheranism, Mormonism, Protestant, Baptist, Church of Christ, non-denominational.

It is of my opinion that because of some of these inerrancies, other interpertations have been made which could be reason (perhaps not the sole reason) for the formation of a new denomination.

All of this is irreleveant to those of you who have found this elusive God. You either don't see the errors or you don't find them to be errors, or you don't find them to be significant enough to warrant further review. In your biblical contradictions thread, for every error one cites, one finds another scripture to explain that error (discrepancy). What you don't understand is that even though you have explained the discrepancy, it doesn't make it disappear. It is still a discrepancy that can be countered with another discrepancy. But to you all, it makes no difference because you have found what you percieve to be the truth and it is all clear to you. For the rest of us, we either need to find some sort of middle ground to move forward, or sink back to discounting the entire thing because reconciliation can't be made.

So, why is it important for the bible to be inerrant? Because it is the defining book of God that leads one to either becoming theist or atheist or somewhere in between. I would like to believe that a God who wanted His creation to follow Him would give a clear account of history and a clear set of instructions. Not vague analogies etc... that may have made sense 2007+ years ago, but today, don't even apply.

[micatala]

Might I suggest a book for both you and Micatala: It is called The Language of God by Francis S Collins. Many of you will recognize the author since he not only a HIGHLY RESPECTED scientist, but also the head of the Human Genome Project. In his book he does a phenomenal job in reconciling science and religion outside of using creationism or ID. Of note, he is cited in helping to discover the genetic errors of Cystic Fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Huntingtons disease. He is religious, yet has successfully led the department of the Genome Project into unraveling the hereditary code of life.

I have heard of this book, but have not as yet read it. I will put it on my list!

So, why is it important for the bible to be inerrant? Because it is the defining book of God that leads one to either becoming theist or atheist or somewhere in between. I would like to believe that a God who wanted His creation to follow Him would give a clear account of history and a clear set of instructions. Not vague analogies etc... that may have made sense 2007+ years ago, but today, don't even apply.

I can understand and accept this as an answer.

I guess to summarize, both you and biker think it is important for the bible to be inerrant because not being inerrant leads to :

1. Less confidence in the teachings. This in turn leads to
2. Confusion or ambiguity about what to do in a given situation, particularly a difficult moral situation.
3. In addition, because the assumption is the consequences of erring in moral matters, or more importantly matters that bear on eternal life ,are so potentially dire, it is more important for the Bible to be inerrant than for most any other written work.

IF there is nothing further to add or debate, I may start a new thread to discuss the implications of the Bible not being inerrant.

In other words, if we assume the Bible does have errors, how do we deal with our situation?

[Biker]

Might I suggest a book for both you and Micatala: It is called The Language of God by Francis S Collins. Many of you will recognize the author since he not only a HIGHLY RESPECTED scientist, but also the head of the Human Genome Project. In his book he does a phenomenal job in reconciling science and religion outside of using creationism or ID. Of note, he is cited in helping to discover the genetic errors of Cystic Fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Huntingtons disease. He is religious, yet has successfully led the department of the Genome Project into unraveling the hereditary code of life.

I have heard of this book, but have not as yet read it. I will put it on my list!

So, why is it important for the bible to be inerrant? Because it is the defining book of God that leads one to either becoming theist or atheist or somewhere in between. I would like to believe that a God who wanted His creation to follow Him would give a clear account of history and a clear set of instructions. Not vague analogies etc... that may have made sense 2007+ years ago, but today, don't even apply.

I can understand and accept this as an answer.

I guess to summarize, both you and biker think it is important for the bible to be inerrant because not being inerrant leads to :

1. Less confidence in the teachings. This in turn leads to
2. Confusion or ambiguity about what to do in a given situation, particularly a difficult moral situation.
3. In addition, because the assumption is the consequences of erring in moral matters, or more importantly matters that bear on eternal life ,are so potentially dire, it is more important for the Bible to be inerrant than for most any other written work.

IF there is nothing further to add or debate, I may start a new thread to discuss the implications of the Bible not being inerrant.

In other words, if we assume the Bible does have errors, how do we deal with our situation?

Micatala,
You can launch if you want, but I don't agree with some of your reasoning above.
I listed 4 things earlier.
I don't assume the Bible has errors!

Biker

[micatala]

Might I suggest a book for both you and Micatala: It is called The Language of God by Francis S Collins. Many of you will recognize the author since he not only a HIGHLY RESPECTED scientist, but also the head of the Human Genome Project. In his book he does a phenomenal job in reconciling science and religion outside of using creationism or ID. Of note, he is cited in helping to discover the genetic errors of Cystic Fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, and Huntingtons disease. He is religious, yet has successfully led the department of the Genome Project into unraveling the hereditary code of life.

I have heard of this book, but have not as yet read it. I will put it on my list!

So, why is it important for the bible to be inerrant? Because it is the defining book of God that leads one to either becoming theist or atheist or somewhere in between. I would like to believe that a God who wanted His creation to follow Him would give a clear account of history and a clear set of instructions. Not vague analogies etc... that may have made sense 2007+ years ago, but today, don't even apply.

I can understand and accept this as an answer.

I guess to summarize, both you and biker think it is important for the bible to be inerrant because not being inerrant leads to :

1. Less confidence in the teachings. This in turn leads to
2. Confusion or ambiguity about what to do in a given situation, particularly a difficult moral situation.
3. In addition, because the assumption is the consequences of erring in moral matters, or more importantly matters that bear on eternal life ,are so potentially dire, it is more important for the Bible to be inerrant than for most any other written work.

IF there is nothing further to add or debate, I may start a new thread to discuss the implications of the Bible not being inerrant.

In other words, if we assume the Bible does have errors, how do we deal with our situation?

Micatala,
You can launch if you want, but I don't agree with some of your reasoning above.
I listed 4 things earlier.
I don't assume the Bible has errors!

Biker

Let's go ahead and add those in. I know I was trying to quickly encapsulate the 7 or so pages so far in a couple sentences and so did probably leave something out.

1. If we deny inerrancy, a serious moral problem confronts us: may we imitate God and intentionally lie in small matters also?
2. If inerrancy is denied, we begin to wonder if we can really trust God in anything He says.
3. If we deny inerrancy, we essentially make our own human minds a higher standard of truth than God's word itself.
4. If we deny inerrancy, then we must also say that the Bible is wrong not only in minor details but in some of its doctrines as well.

I can accept these are reasons why someone would feel inerrancy is important.

My first comment at this point would be that 2, 3, and possibly 1 seem to assume that the bible is directly written by God, or something close to that, so that when one is having issues with the Bible, one is having issues with God. I don't share this assumption as I have a somewhat different view of the nature of 'inspiration' of scripture or the scripture being 'God-breathed.'

With respect to 3, my view is that since the Bible is written by men, we are not making our minds 'higher than God's' when we do not accept it as inerrant. In fact, since there are passages which, in my view, are not 'inerrant' based on even the considerations of our 'lowly' minds, this indicates to me that the Bible is not a direct product of God's mind. To me it derives indirectly from God through men.

I am also a bit confused by exactly what you mean in 1. Can you explain?



I also understand you do not accept that the bible has errors. The new thread can be thought of as making this a 'hypothetical assumption' so that, whether or not particular members hold one view or the other, we could at least debate what the consequences would be if it were true.