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.

[otseng]

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?

Yes, this is what this thread is about. Seems like people still want to discuss if the Bible has errors in it.

I think it's safe to acknowledge that any existing copy of the Bible, whether it is a manuscript or a translation can have errors in it. If there's anyone who is a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, it would be Norman Geisler. Even he acknowledges this fact.

Genuine mistakes have been found-in copies of Bible text made hundreds of years after the autographs. God only uttered the original text of Scripture, not the copies. Therefore, only the original text is without error. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy is without error, especially in copies made from copies made from copies made from copies. For example, the King James Version (KJV) of 2 Kings 8:26 gives the age of King Ahaziah as 22, whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42. The later number cannot be correct, or he would have been older than his father. This is obviously a copyist error, but it does not alter the inerrancy of the original.

https://normangeisler.com/are-there-any ... the-bible/

Geisler (as well as the vast majority of Christian groups) only claim the autographs are inerrant.

The only Bibles we use are translations. So, it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant to be authoritative.

[Elijah John]

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?

Yes, this is what this thread is about. Seems like people still want to discuss if the Bible has errors in it.

I think it's safe to acknowledge that any existing copy of the Bible, whether it is a manuscript or a translation can have errors in it. If there's anyone who is a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, it would be Norman Geisler. Even he acknowledges this fact.

Genuine mistakes have been found-in copies of Bible text made hundreds of years after the autographs. God only uttered the original text of Scripture, not the copies. Therefore, only the original text is without error. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy is without error, especially in copies made from copies made from copies made from copies. For example, the King James Version (KJV) of 2 Kings 8:26 gives the age of King Ahaziah as 22, whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says 42. The later number cannot be correct, or he would have been older than his father. This is obviously a copyist error, but it does not alter the inerrancy of the original.

https://normangeisler.com/are-there-any ... the-bible/

Geisler (as well as the vast majority of Christian groups) only claim the autographs are inerrant.

The only Bibles we use are translations. So, it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant to be authoritative.

Many errors have been demonstrated here on this site. Not all are minutia, some are major and doctrinal. Are all errors, contradictions, and absurdities to be dismissed only because they stem from translations? Isn't it likely that at least some of them have their origins in the autographs and original manuscripts?

Here's an example of a major contradiction. The author of Hebrews states "that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins". That is contradicted in the opening chapters of Luke, where the Baptist is recorded as performing baptisms of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. No blood involved.

And in the LORD's prayer, "forgive as we forgive". Why would Jesus teach this condition if the believer is covered by "the blood"? Isn't "the blood" sufficient?

And the book of Proverbs "by mercy and truth is sin atoned for". There are many other examples. Are these all to be chaulked up to errors in translation?

If this is the case, must all of our debates on TD&D be about translations? If so, I'm certainly at a disadvantage, because I don't know either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

[otseng]

If this is the case, must all of our debates on TD&D be about translations? If so, I'm certainly at a disadvantage, because I don't know either Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

We could debate the Hebrew and Greek critical text and manuscripts. But, they would not count either as being inerrant. Only the autographs would be inerrant. Since none exist, it's impossible to objectively say what it's in them and to debate them.

Many errors have been demonstrated here on this site. Not all are minutia, some are major and doctrinal. Are all errors, contradictions, and absurdities to be dismissed only because they stem from translations? Isn't it likely that at least some of them have their origins in the autographs and original manuscripts?

Entirely possible. But I think that is for another thread.

[Avoice]

The bible.
What is the bible? A Christian will say the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Testament are the bible.

When the Christian testament speaks about things written in the scriptures they mean the Hebrew Scriptures.


Oh no....it can be one lie after the next and I'll still believe it. Yeahhhhh...I don't think so

[JehovahsWitness]

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

# 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?

Of course.... {snip}

And wouldn't the result of such be a process be an inerrant script?

[otseng]

# 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?

Of course.... {snip}

That Is what "inspired of God" means. It means that God controlled the writers to the extent necessary to get his inerrant thoughts into paper.

• You admit that such a thing as inerrant scripture is possible, that a perfect, inerrant set of writings could in fact exist but only argue that as God in His infinite wisdom has chosen never to bring such a thing into existence!

Correct me if I am wrong but does the above not sum up your position?

Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it's a fact, or even probable.

But even granting the autographs are inerrant, I do not see anyone arguing that the translations are also inerrant. Of what practical value is trumpeting the autographs are inerrant, when we don't have them, and the only Bibles we do use are translations?

[JehovahsWitness]

Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it's a fact, or even probable.

Yes but this thread as you said is not about proving inerrancy it's about defining what it means and discussing in view of that definition if it would be important.


Let us not derail the OP.

The topic is not is the Bible inerrant, but is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

JW

[brianbbs67]

The scriptures referred to in the NT are the Torah. Actually, scripture seems to be an invention as the Greek says writings. What does the original scripture(Torah) tell us through Duet.13 about prophets if the are wrong?

It says to reject them. I think that's a little harsh but something to point to as a reminder.

[JehovahsWitness]

Of what practical value is trumpeting the autographs are inerrant, when we don't have them, and the only Bibles we do use are translations?

It means we would have a starting point. If you know where to start you can work out where you need to go and how. Once one accepts there is an omnipotent God and that he could produce inerrant scripture albeit using imperfect humans, and that the original texts would have been free of any kind of error we at least are in a position to start the investigation to see *if* gaining access to that original product is possible. And if not to what extent we can confirm the content of what we have. It potentially raises the bible from the valuable to the divine.

The thread is "How important would inerrancy be"? Thus defined, it would be about as important as gaining access to the perfect mind of God would be . Thus defined it explains why people have been willing to die for the bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
"When all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether relative to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical or life sciences."
https://bible.org/article/inspiration-inerrancy

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

Jehovah’s Witness
"Absolute inerrancy is therefore to be attributed to the written Word of God. This is true of the original writings, none of which are known to exist today. The copies of those original writings and the translations made in many languages cannot lay claim to absolute accuracy."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/120 ... p=par#h=23

Copyists. As far as is known today, no handwritten original, or autograph, manuscripts of the Bible are in existence. Yet the Bible has been preserved in accurate, reliable form because Biblical copyists in general, accepting the Scriptures as being divinely inspired, sought perfection in their arduous labor of producing manuscript copies of God’s Word.

JW