Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

[otseng]

Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy.

As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is not up for debate.

[Elijah John]

Seems to me the contradictions and occasional atrocities have their origins even in the original copies.

So would it be fair to say that you don't believe any infallible group of written words (of any number) has ever existed on earth?

I cannot think of any. Why do you believe the Bible is? Especially after having it's flaws demonstrated here on this site, over and over again?

-contradictions (not just minor ones, but broad doctrinal ones)
-absurdities (the flood story, etc)
-atrocities (again, the flood story, the slave-beating passage, etc, etc.)
-revisionist prophecies, or self-fulfilling ones.

And that is not to say that I don't believe the Bible is "the Good Book". A book (even one inspired by God) does not have to be perfect in order for it to be good. The statement in my signature area sums up my position nicely, "the Bible is redeemed by it's good parts". And there are many. Folks should focus on those, believer and unbeliever alike.

And authoritative, (in spite of it's flaws) because of those good parts, and because of the centrality of influence it has had in the lives and spirituality of Christian and Jew alike.

[JehovahsWitness]

So would it be fair to say that you don't believe any infallible group of written words (of any number) has ever existed on earth?

I cannot think of any.

So would this be because you cannot conceive of any reason God would see the need for such a thing for humans?

(I take it you accept that Almighty God has infallible, inerrant thoughts in his mind, and were YHWH to speak at any time his words would be inerrant?)

[2timothy316]

Yet I do not view the word inerrant has perfect in the absolute sense. I think that the inerrant (incapable of being wrong) quality can be passed on. I also have faith that Jehovah God the creator of all things, can help people get an inerrant message from modern day Bibles.

That's an interesting thought. It sounds like you're saying that inerrancy isn't an absolute state of the text, but is an interaction between the author, translator, and reader that is mediated by God. Inerrancy is a property of reading or hearing the Bible rather than of the words alone. Is that what you meant to say?

Yes. Like a telescope, you can't see things far away if you look at the telescope, only if you look through it and see what it sees do things become clear. Like the Bible. A person that just reads it without living what it says to do, just sees dead letters.

I personally think it was God that began the freeing of His own Word. If he will do that, then certainly He could back translations of His Word to pass on inerrancy.

A similar line of thinking is what led to KJV-only doctrines. If God inspired authors to write inerrant text, then God surely can preserve that text and inspire translators to preserve the meaning of His text. If God saw a reason to inspire the text in the first place, then He must certainly have preserved it for even modern readers.

According to that thinking, since textual criticism completely preserves none of the source texts, no text produced by criticism can be the inerrant original. Beginning with the ASV, all modern English translations are based on critical texts, so the last translation of a preserved text must be the KJV.

My own religion started its studies mostly using the KJV. Yet where others are dead set that the KJV supports doctrines such as the trinity. Yet when we fully examined the KJV years ago we saw that the KJV was not harmonious in the trinity doctrine. Was this a spirit led conclusion? Maybe. Even though there were scriptures in it like 1 John 5:7 that said, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This one verse didn't change our view that the trinity just didn't add up scripturally. Of course we know now that the 2nd part of 1 John 5:7 is not in the oldest copies of 1 John 5:7. Many translations removed it over the years. Yet isn't it kind of neat that before it was clear that adding those words were an error, people still formed solid ground that the trinity was most likely not scriptural? Something trustworthy came from something that had untrustworthy words in it.

[Eloi]

Maybe some people have a wrong idea about the God who inspired the Bible ... or a wrong idea about themselves. I would never try to judge God. Trying to judge His inspired word is like judging Him.

Pro. 1: 7 The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge.
Only fools despise wisdom and discipline.
... 9:10 The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom,
And knowledge of the Most Holy One is understanding.

Am I more righteous than God to accuse Him of anything? Can anyone?

Job 38:1 And Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say:
 2 “Who is this that is obscuring counsel
By words without knowledge?
 3 Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man,
And let me question you, and you inform me.
 4 Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding.

... 40:6 And Jehovah went on to answer Job out of the windstorm and say:
 7 “Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man;
I shall question you, and you inform me.
 8 Really, will you invalidate my justice?
Will you pronounce me wicked in order that you may be in the right?
 9 Or do you have an arm like that of the [true] God,
And with a voice like his can you make it thunder?
10 Deck yourself, please, with superiority and highness;
And with dignity and splendor may you clothe yourself.

Jesus, the Son of God himself, knew the Scripture CAN NOT be nullified:

John 10:35 (...) the Scripture cannot be nullified

[Elijah John]

So would it be fair to say that you don't believe any infallible group of written words (of any number) has ever existed on earth?

I cannot think of any.

So would this be because you cannot conceive of any reason God would see the need for such a thing for humans?

(I take it you accept that Almighty God has infallible, inerrant thoughts in his mind, and were YHWH to speak at any time his words would be inerrant?)

Yes, if he were to speak. Has He spoken to you though a vision? Or from a cloud? I doubt it. Through the written Word. Yes, perhaps. Through Creation? Yes, that is basic. "The Heavens declare the glory of God". Does the "still, small voice" need a book to speak the Living Word?

But do you see that Bible authors bring something of their own bias to the equation? I think both you and I would agree that the Bible authors did not take dictation. Inspiration, yes, but not dictation. And in that process of recording the inspiration, error can, (and seemingly does, at times) leak in.

But grant that for the sake of argument. Would the occasional flaw nullify the Bible's authority? Why should, or why would that be so?

[JehovahsWitness]

So would it be fair to say that you don't believe any infallible group of written words (of any number) has ever existed on earth?

I cannot think of any.

So would this be because you cannot conceive of any reason God would see the need for such a thing for humans?

(I take it you accept that Almighty God has infallible, inerrant thoughts in his mind, and were YHWH to speak at any time his words would be inerrant?)

Yes, if he were to speak.

So in theory if God were to speak that person, (imperfect as they are would be) that person would be hearing inerrant words. So in theory if God were to control their hand writing (and maybe their sense of hearing), theoretically if a human were to hear inerrant words and write them down, the finished product would be have a group of words (a text) that were inerrant, no?


JW

[Elijah John]

So would it be fair to say that you don't believe any infallible group of written words (of any number) has ever existed on earth?

I cannot think of any.

So would this be because you cannot conceive of any reason God would see the need for such a thing for humans?

(I take it you accept that Almighty God has infallible, inerrant thoughts in his mind, and were YHWH to speak at any time his words would be inerrant?)

Yes, if he were to speak.

So in theory if God were to speak that person, (imperfect as they are would be) that person would be hearing inerrant words. So in theory if God were to control their hand writing (and maybe their sense of hearing), theoretically if a human were to hear inerrant words and write them down, the finished product would be have a group of words (a text) that were inerrant, no?



JW

Sure, YHVH could safeguard the writer in the process, to keep him from error. But what is your evidence that He did so, with every word, every verse, every passage and every book in the Bible? And which canon of the Bible? You realize, you accept the 66 Trinitarian compiled Protestant canon. Why?

And how do you account for the errors in the Bible? Other than to simply dismiss them.

OK, say He spoke from the sky, as is claimed He did for Paul. Did Paul write right away? How reliable is memory?

Thomas Paine makes a good argument regarding error and the Bible. Yes, God is capable of direct revelation to any given human. But once that human tells (or writes) that revelation to another, it becomes 2nd hand hearsay. Is anyone obliged to believe hearsay?

[JehovahsWitness]

So in theory if God were to speak that person, (imperfect as they are would be) that person would be hearing inerrant words. So in theory if God were to control their hand writing (and maybe their sense of hearing), theoretically if a human were to hear inerrant words and write them down, the finished product would be have a group of words (a text) that were inerrant, no?

Sure, YHVH could safeguard the writer in the process, to keep him from error.

So wouldnt the result be the inerrant word of God?

I think both you and I would agree that the Bible authors did not take dictation.

# Could an Almighty omnipotent God conceivably get inerrant thoughts from his perfect mind into the mind of a bible writer as if he heard them and then get that person to put what had been communicated to him into paper, if necessarily controlling his hand writing?

Is such a thing theoretically possible?




JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 58 by JehovahsWitness]

Of course, but what is your evidence that He did this? And in which Bible? And why do you accept the Protestant Canon of 66 books? Compiled by Trinitarians. Why not the Orthodox, or the Roman Catholic Canon, the original Christian canon. And better still, why not the Hebrew, Jewish Canon? After all, the Proverb warns, "do not add to his words, lest you be reproved and shown to be a liar". How is the New Testament not "adding to his words"?

Also, denial of demonstrated error does not make them go away. And they are there. So it seems that either God had no part in the writing or the compilation of the Bible, or he allowed for human error in the process.

And regarding the "original document" argument, is that one that JWs make? How is it that God allowed error in translations, then?

[polonius]

Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy.

As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is not up for debate.

RESPONSE:

That's an erroneous assumption as can be demonstrated.

Even the first chapters of Matthew and Luke have Jesus born twice, once during the reign of King Herod the Great who died about 4 BC and a second time ten years later during the Judean census. (So to be inerrant, Mary must have had two sons named Jesus born ten years apart)

An apparently infallible teaching about biblical inerrancy was provide by Pope Leo XLLL in his famous writing Providentissimus deus.

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. [/b]This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. "

Note; You really don't want me to start listing biblical errors do you. It would be a very long post.