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.

[JehovahsWitness]

"Other things being equal, I would prefer to drop all extra-scriptural terms including "infallible" and "inerrant"and simply speak, as Scripture does, of God's Word being true."
https://frame-poythress.org/is-the-bible-inerrant/

Agreed, and this is why it is extremely rare to see the words infallible and "inerrant" in Jehovah's Witness literature. We affirm rather that the bible is inspired of God (contains divine thoughts and instructions), that it we can be confident it's integrity has not been compromised, and that it's narratives are completely trustworthy, meaning we can trust any historical, scientific or supernatural detail as being true and accurate reflections of reality.

What is the Jehovah's Witness position on biblical inerrancy ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 43#p985343


NOTE: That which is true cannot at the same time also be erroneous.




MEANING

Is the term "inerrancy" without MEANING?
viewtopic.php?p=1091724#p1091724

Should the term "inerrancy" be replaced?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

INERRANT AUTOGRAPH

Would God's use of human "secretaries" to write the bible not have corrupted it from its start?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p833783

Why didn't God drop the bible in fact from heaven?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p833783

Would the fact that humans played a part in the production of scripture mean it could not be inerrant?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 18#p833718

IMPORT

If the bible HAD been compromised, would that negate God's existence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p833457

Can the bible be a mixture of diamonds and dung?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 22#p979422

Can the gospel of John be trusted?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p885529

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[otseng]

I don't mind stating for the record that I don't believe it has any errors (historical, scientific) or any contradictions but we are not here to discuss that ...

Personally, I do believe the autographs have "errors" in them. But even if it does have "errors", it is meaningless to claim the Bible is errant. Instead, we can say the Bible is true, reliable, and authoritative.

For example, the Bible uses phenomenological language.

[Mat 5:45 KJV] 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

We know the sun does not orbit the earth, but the earth orbits the sun. So, technically the sun does not rise. It has an "error" in it. But, we can understand the meaning. The statement can be true, even though it technically has an "error" in it.

...and whether such inerrancy is important.

Since you said, "Agreed, and this is why it is extremely rare to see the words “infallible� and “inerrant� in Jehovah's Witness literature", then the term inerrancy should not be important.

The purpose of the thread is not to argue if the Bible has errors in it, but if the term "inerrant" is necessary or it should be dropped. It looks like we're in agreement with the latter.

[Elijah John]

we can trust any historical, scientific or supernatural detail as being true and accurate reflections of reality.

I'm gonna call you on the "historical, and scientific" accuracy bit.

This view differs from the RCC position, which holds that the Bible is not a book of science, nor is it a book of history. Rather the Bible contains all the spiritual truth we need for our salvation. I think the RCC position is more in line with reality. After all, snakes do not talk, (did they ever?) the earth does not stop rotating (did the sun ever "stand still"?) people do not walk on water, (did Jesus or Peter ever do this, literally?) donkey's don't talk, (did they ever?), the entire world was never flooded, (there is not enough water), all the species of the earth and sky could not have fitted on a single boat, and the carnivores could not have survived the 40 daya and 40 nights without eating the other animals (did polar bears migrate to the Middle East to board?) Also, was the earth flooded with fresh or salt water? Most fresh water fish could not survive in salt water, and vice versa.

And regarding "historical facts" of the Bible, there is no evidence for the Exodus outside of the Bible, the chronological details differ from the Synoptics to the Gospel of John, there is no evidence of a mass resurrection in first century Palestine as spoken of by Matthew, etc, etc.

NOTE: That which is true cannot at the same time also be erroneous.

Your assertion allows for no shades of gray. And would you agree that there are different kinds of truth? Scientific, empirical, literal, poetic, artistic, etc?

I think our best bet is to consider the Bible a book of Spiritual inspiration, not history, not science.

[Tcg]

all the species of the earth and sky could not have fitted on a single boat, and the carnivores could not have survived the 40 daya and 40 nights without eating the other animals (did polar bears migrate to the Middle East to board?)

40 days and 40 nights? According to the story, Noah and crew were on the ark for over a year.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

we can trust any historical, scientific or supernatural detail as being true and accurate reflections of reality.

I'm gonna call you on the "historical, and scientific" accuracy bit.

My statement is not up for debate, it is my position as one of Jehovah's Witness and accurately reflects what we as a religious organisation believe. End of story, it's not a negotiation, it's not even relevant to this thread, above and beyond the framework of how one defines "inerrancy "

This view differs from the RCC position...

Why would I care? As I often say, if the Catholic church declared the sky blue I'd ask for a second opinion.

[Tcg]

Why would I care? As I often say, if the Catholic church declared the sky blue I'd ask for a second opinion.

Yes, it is not unusual for the myriad branches of Christianity to disagree. The Catholics may doubt the JWs if they claimed the sky was blue.

Given that both branches claim that God exists, I'd ask for a third opinion.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

For example, the Bible uses phenomenological language.

[Mat 5:45 KJV] 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

We know the sun does not orbit the earth, but the earth orbits the sun. So, technically the sun does not rise. It has an "error" in it. But, we can understand the meaning. The statement can be true, even though it technically has an "error" in it.

I think you are wrong to call figurative/metaphor/poetry "erroneous". This is like declaring the colour orange ... noisy. The only "error" (as Galileo tried to make the Catholic authorities of his day understand) lies with the reader not knowing how language works.

An error would be something which can be proven to be contrary to reality, and since all words can convey both a literal and a figurative meaning, and what the figurative meaning is cannot be proven, one cannot declare the bible of being guilty of an error every time it records poetry, allegory or metaphor. They are not "errors" with or without inverted commas. In short you may say if taken literally it is erroneous but you cannot prove that it should be taken literally, nor can one reasonable say it is an error to employ such language.

I suspect certain Christians are a little to eagre to declare at least some content in the bible erroneous, to avoid being classed as "fundamentalists" and face the ridicule of their intellectual peers.

Now there are religions (this seems to be the current trend) that effectively hold every single detail in the bible symbolic by default with the exception of that which can be supported by scientific or historical evidence. Most accept the supernatural events described in the bible as being literally true (because science doesn't concern itself which such things) but revert to the default position or out right declare the bible wrong when the details surrounding said supernatural event are questioned.

The Jehovah's Witness position is the bible is always right. If there is a conflict between the historical or scientific consensus and the bible (which is rare, see above) , then our money will be on the bible being the correct reflection of reality every time.

My understanding of your position (do correct me if I'm wrong) is you believe the bible is "true, reliable, and authoritative", and when you say "true, reliable, and authoritative" you mean incorrect from its inception in certain details, facts and narratives, wrong whenever it makes statements regarding dates, locations and any historical or scientific/botanical/biological details which are unsupported by the scientific community, either because they should be taken figuratively (and writing figuratively is an "error") or because the writers were simply mistaken. Other than all that it's entirely "true, reliable, and authoritative".



JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[otseng]

I think you are wrong to call figurative/metaphor/poetry "erroneous".

In the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy, it has to qualify what is meant by inerrancy by listing out exceptions, such as phenomenological language:

"We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."
http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- ... -inerrancy

The need to list out many exceptions to inerrancy hints at special pleading and thus renders the term useless.

The only "error" (as Galileo tried to make the Catholic authorities of his day understand) lies with the reader not knowing how language works.

Sure. But, if something is claimed to be inerrant by an omnipotent God, it's held to a higher standard of how language typically works.

My understanding of your position (do correct me if I'm wrong) is you believe the bible is "true, reliable, and authoritative", and when you say "true, reliable, and authoritative" you mean incorrect from its inception in certain details, facts and narratives, wrong whenever it makes statements regarding dates, locations and any historical or scientific/botanical/biological details which are unsupported by the scientific community, either because they should be taken figuratively (and writing figuratively is an "error") or because the writers were simply mistaken. Other than all that it's entirely "true, reliable, and authoritative".

Incorrect assumption of how I view scripture.

In some aspects, I'm more conservative than many fundamentalists. I believe in a literal six days of creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal worldwide flood, a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, reject macroevolution, and believe the earth is at the center of the universe.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 77 by brianbbs67]

Oh Brian....you really don't want to use Hebrews 10
Do you? Where in chapter 10 should I start?
Below is what the Hebrew Scriptures state. And what the Christian testament says. It is doing what it does best. Raping the text.


HS-. The original message:
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do they will O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.[/b]

Christian testament-
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (________________) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.



BUT A BODY THOU HAST PREPARED FOR ME? THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS. IT SAYS MY EARS YOUR U HAVE OPENED. . And look what else was stolen from- the words:. THY LAW IS WITHIN MY HEART. Oh no.... Christianity COMPLETELY REMOVED THOSE WORDS !!!

He taketh away the first to establish the second? Says who? Not God. The writer of Hebrews is committing a crime like no other; changing the messages. Psalms doesn't say anything like that.
And Jesus dying once for all sins? The Church says Jesus replaced the law of the sacrificial system. If jesys died once fir all sins then why does the Messiah offer a sacrifice for the nation and a sacrifice fir himself in the end days?
Domt forget the last jewel near the bottom. The Christian testament is telling you that once you have received the truth (AND CHRISTIANS BELIEVE JESUS US THE TRUTH). THEN ANY SIN YOU COMMIT AFTER HAVING THE TRUTH CANT BE TAKEN AWAY WITH A SACRIFICE. JESUS CANT DO A THING FOR YOUR SINS. IT SAYS SO IN YOUR OWN TESTANENT. READ IT BELOW


For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

The Christian testament is a theological crime scene. Disgusting. DISGUSTING. These aren't little errors. These are intentional. Adding to the scriptures?? Oh my God how can people uphold such garbage.

[otseng]

I believe we have also been too influenced by the Greek way of thinking and need to balance it with the Hebrew way of thought.

Inerrancy is one manifestation of the Greek thinking and has been influenced by Plato's theory of forms.

The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as "Ideas" or "Forms", are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

Like the allegory of the cave, the translations are the shadows, and the autographs are the ideal, inerrant form. We can only see the shadows (translations) and the ideal form (autographs) cannot be directly observed.

Greek cosmology was based on the assumption the circle was the perfect shape so everything in cosmology must use circles.

The ancient Greeks developed, over a period of centuries, an elaborate cosmology. By cosmology is meant the structure and the origin of the universe. The earliest views, going back to the time of Homer and Hesiod (the 8th century BC) postulated a flat or cylindrical earth located in a hemispherical cosmos that surrounded or envelopped it. But by the time of the thinkers associated with the legendary and mythical Pythagorus (560-480BC, app.), the view became widely accepted that the earth was a sphere in a universe which was itself also fully spherical. This claim was based both on theoretical grounds -- (i) the belief that the circle or sphere was the most perfect of geometric shapes, and therefore appropriate for the earth and the cosmos, which were the most important of objects, and (ii) on practical grounds -- the observations of a ship and its mast as the vessell receded beyond the horizon.

https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmo ... round.html

Likewise, Christians assume God and the Bible must be "perfect".

Because of the insistence that orbits must be circular, they developed elaborate theories of how the planets move by creating circles on top of other circles.

Long before the time of Copernicus, the Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy created a model of all the planets' observed celestial motions. The model involved combinations of perfect circles rotating with uniform speed. Ptolemy explained the apparent "looping motion" of the planets by placing the center of one rotating circle, called the epicycle, which carried the planet, on another rotating circle, called the deferent, so that together the motions of the two circles produced the observed looping motion of the planet.

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harva ... le-machine

The epicycle theory actually worked remarkably well and could explain planetary motion. And it could not be disproven until many centuries later when telescopes were invented.

Inerrancy is similar to the epicycle theory where qualifications (circles) are added to the definition of inerrancy to keep the doctrine intact. At first, inerrancy was not limited to the autographs, but applied to all scripture (including translations). Then came along Biblical textual criticism. It showed at a minimum there were copyist errors. So, a circle had to be added - inerrancy only applied to the autographs. Attacks on the autographs were made by pointing out other discrepencies in the text, so more qualifications were added. Now, in the definitive statement on the inerrancy of scripture, the Chicago statement, it lists many other circles that are added.

We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- ... -inerrancy

Having all these qualifications (circles) does not disprove inerrancy, but it does show there is an inherent weakness.

As far as I know, in the Hebraic view of scriptures, they never viewed the Bible as inerrant (as defined by the Greek way of thinking). It never occurred to them to approach the scriptures with the point of view that God or the scriptures must conform to the ideal, perfect concept.