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.

[marco]

Oh Brian....you really don't want to use Hebrews 10
Do you? Where in chapter 10 should I start?

Perhaps it would have been wiser not to start at all, since your post has descended into a rant. Disagree by all means, but discuss.

Moderator Comment

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.

[polonius]

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.

So did the Catholic church until Galileo came along and the whole story fell apart.

[onewithhim]

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.

I personally don't think that anything written down by humans will be totally error-free. I think that they can get the main thought and the very important details right, but there are some things that will be exaggerated, embellished, or missed (being picked up, usually, by someone else). Joshua wrote that the sun stood still. Of course that isn't possible, and I don't think God would even do such a thing. It would wreak havoc around the world. So Joshua wrote what it seemed like to him. But is that so necessary to believe when considering the whole picture? It is important to understand what was happening with the Israelites, why, and what the outcome meant for them. That God was with them is an important point, but not that the sun stood still. Whether it did or not makes no difference, really, to the meaning of the whole event.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

So what where are the biblical "errors" ?

Personally, I do believe the autographs have "errors" in them.

[JehovahsWitness]

DID GOD MAKE A MISTAKE IN USING METAPHOR ?

For those of us that accept the bible as truthful, it is clear that God uses metaphor and poetry in scripture. So since God is perfect, metaphoric or poetical language cannot by definition be an error. Jesus also employed metaphor/parables, symbolism ect. and since we have agreed the bible is truthful, and the truthful bible says Jesus is perfect he obviously didn't make any mistakes, so metaphor cannot be classified as "erroneous"

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.

I don't know what that means. If there are those that classify poetry as "erroneous" and then declare a book like the bible full of errors because it is full of poetry, that is their ad hoc problem and nothing I need to take seriously. To declare poetry erroneous and then claim God should be above such things is just so much nonsense. Possibly we are making the same arguement and you just need to find a different word than "error". God has to limit himself to human language since humans don't speak the language he uses with his angels. Even the most complex of ideas is like talking to a three-year old for God, so he's effectively saying "ga ga goo goo" because our miniscule brains couldn't grasp a thing if he explained things at his intellectual level. It's not an error to simply something.

"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 above group said well, it's not saying "well these are errors we will ignore, it's saying the above are not errors at all " ..and I agree.

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

Again they are not listing "exceptions to inerrancy" they are kindly explaining to those who may have difficulty understanding the basic linguistic concepts what the word error does and does not mean. Evidently Galileos point was not lost on everyone although it seems to be a challenge for some on this forum.

Metaphor, simile, allegory, song, symbolism and simile are no more erroneous than maths or algebra, its language and no human has the right to say which language is best for an Almighty God to communicate in. Given the purpose and audience of the bible, the use of metaphor is certainly the best (most optimal) way for a God to communicate with humans who are visual creatures that understand abstract and complex ideas better when communicated in these terms.





JW

[onewithhim]

I think first we need to agree on some terms.

inerrant: incapable of being wrong
errant: erring or straying from the proper course or standards
authoritative: able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
errors: a mistake
scripture: sacred writings

This sentence has an errror in it, but no less understandable.

In my study of the Bible I have found that it's message is completely reliable despite errors in it's writing. I have found no error in the Bible that changes it's message. That includes additions that some have tried to add to make the Bible bias towards their dogma. Good examples are hellfire and the trinity. Even with those added changes the message of the Bible doesn't change.

Yes, absolutely. That is my point as well.

Further, even if someone adds foolishness like hell-fire, a student of the Bible can deduce for himself that most of God's Word says plainly that the wicked will be destroyed and will be no more.

Another point that comes to mind, concerning a man's inability to get things perfectly correct or CLEAR though writing down an important fact, is what I see at Revelation 20:4,5. John was writing down what Christ was telling him about the anointed persons who would rule with Him in heaven. John got the main point right, but the ORDER that he wrote down certain things is confusing, and he could've been more explicit.

The anointed rulers with Christ would "come to life" before the battle of Armageddon, and will thus be ready to rule with Him during His Thousand-Year Reign, which He calls "the last day." (John 6:40) This is quite easy to understand, as he wrote it. Then we get to verse 5, and no one in any religion (except Jehovah's own people) understand what this means. It looks like all the rest of the dead---all those who ever lived and those who, after Christ came, were not anointed---would still be dead until the end of the 1,000 years. But, aha!, that does not line up with all other promises that God has made in the Scriptures, from Genesis on.

A very important point---deduced from all other Scriptures---is that (1) the anointed rulers with Christ received their immortality, fully becoming ALIVE (for them, forever) before the 1,000 year reign. The rest of the dead (those not ruling with Christ, which will be the majority of mankind, who will live on Earth) will receive their reward of everlasting life (after they have made their informed choice, during the 1,000 year reign having learned all truth), at the END of that 1,000 year reign. Everyone will choose whether or not they want to serve Jehovah, and those that do not will follow the Devil into destruction (Rev.20:7-10). The ones that choose to stay with Jehovah and Jesus will THEN "come to life," or, be worthy of everlasting life. They will be TRULY "alive." Their lives will never end.

Could it have been written more clearly? Of course, if Jehovah wrote it Himself. But He gave it to us through a man that didn't understand most of what he was seeing and wrote it down the best he could. He got through to us the main ideas of what has gone on "in the Lord's day" (Rev.1:10) and what will happen in the near future for us. It's all, mostly, of course, in SIGNS---that is, in symbolic language. It is possible to understand it with God's Holy Spirit helping us.

So, to conclude, the Bible can be somewhat "errant" in ways, but still be authoritative.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Elijah John]

How can be imperfect something inspired by the spirit of God?

Inspired, not dictated. Because fallible human beings are part of the equation. Also, when Paul wrote to Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired.." was he referring to his own writings? OR to the Hebrew Bible. (the "Old" Testament). Remember historical context before you answer please.

Or are you claiming the Bible was dictated by God? Muslims make that claim about the Qu'ran, but I don't think even Fundamentalist Christians make that same claim about the Bible.

OK, let's go then, with perfect and infallible. Consider Exodus 21.20-21. The slave beating verse. Moses, at least tacitly approves of the institution of slavery here. Not only that, he gives permission to beat one's slave half-to-death as long as they don't die immediately. Moses justifies that because he said that the slave is the slaveowner's "property". Two questions. 1) Do you think these atrocious verses are directly from God? 2) Do you think God considers any human being made in His image to be "property" of another human being?

I have to be completely honest about what I think. And I do not think that God would approve of what is apparently written in Exodus 21:21. Sorry, folks, that's what I believe. I think it is a case of Moses embellishing something with his own idea. It contradicts everything else in the Scriptures concerning Jehovah's profound love for every human being. I think Moses had a habit of doing this embellishment fairly often. How does Exodus 4:25,26 have anything to do with anything important for us to know? There is no one anywhere that has a definitive answer for why this is in the Bible.

Moses' seeming relish at depicting the wars that Jehovah was backing with terrible statements about the deaths of children is totally repulsive to me. I don't believe for a second that Jehovah would order the brutal deaths of children. The reality of the wars is there, and the fact that Jehovah was directing them, but I think that Moses put into his writing a bit of his own unbridled excitement concerning the destruction of the pagan settlements. It is up to us to ponder over this and harmonize this with Matthew 10:29-31. I personally think that the Apostle John got the sense of Jehovah's love much more accurately than did Moses.

A final thought: Will we take Numbers 20:9-11 as Jehovah's express words?

"'Hear now, you rebels! Must we [Aaron and himself] bring out water for you from this crag?' With that Moses lifted his hand up and struck the crag twice with his rod, and much water began to pour out..."

So, reading this are we to assume that God was OK with how Moses carried out His instructions? No. Looking at verse 8 we can see that Jehovah had told Moses something different that he was to do. SPEAK to the rock! So Moses took it upon himself to STRIKE the rock, and then speak as if he and Aaron were responsible for obtaining the water for the people. Because Moses did this, he was not allowed to see the Promised Land. My point is---Moses was known for his hot-headedness and not strictly following Jehovah's ideas. He missed out on the Promised Land because of it. Yet his actions and thoughts were recorded in the Scriptures. Does it blur our understanding of God and His principles, laws, and love for us? Not at all. We can see how honest the Bible is with showing the frailties of the men who wrote these 66 books. And the basic message is always there. We can see the main things that God is telling us, despite "bridegrooms of blood" and beating a slave.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

I do not defend Exodus 21:21. However, the whole idea of "slavery" was very different than what we know of slavery today. I think that a few people here have explained this idea of slavery fairly well, if we were to go back and review what has been said. Jehovah gave instructions for the kind treatment of "slaves," or, employees of that day.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 29 by WeSee]

It looks to me like God condoned Israel taking the pagan people, who stayed with Israel and didn't resist them, for workers to do hard work that would relieve Israelite men and women, but not for "chattel slavery." After all, the pagans didn't worship Jehovah. It was kind of Jehovah to allow them to live. They obviously reacted to the warning that Israel gave to the pagan settlements before descending upon them, to give the inhabitants the chance to surrender. These "foreign settlers" were allowed to live and carry on their lives, but they were to work for the Israelites. This seems quite fair to me.

If we read all of the stipulations that Jehovah set out for "slaves," we will see how they were not to be treated badly.

[otseng]

So what where are the biblical "errors" ?

I might get into those later, but it's not the intention of this thread to discuss if the Bible has errors or not. My main point is arguing it is not necessary to believe the Bible is inerrant.

So, continuing on with my arguments...

There are several Christian denominations that do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy:

Episcopal Church
Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are not accepted by the Episcopal Church.
https://episcopalchurch.org/library/glo ... y-biblical

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
ELCA clergy tend not to subscribe to a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelic ... in_America

Mennonite
The Bible can be faithful and true without being miraculously, supernaturally error free.
https://themennonite.org/opinion/biblical-inerrancy/

PCUSA
Auburn Affirmation 1924
There is no assertion in the Scriptures that their writers were kept "from error." The Confession of Faith does not make this assertion; and it is significant that this assertion is not to be found in the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed or in any of the great Reformation confessions. The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ.
http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/auburntext.html