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]

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.

This is the popular view, but it's not so simple. Perhaps sometime later this can be debated in another thread.

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).

I would agree with this.

I don't know what that means.

As onewithhim mentioned above, humans make mistakes. Humans penned the autographs. They weren't directly written by God. Given the limitations, personalities, genre, purpose, etc, humans will not write with any degree of perfection. If it's claimed that they would write differently when they authored text that would be scripture, then somehow language is working differently at those times. I would doubt that they even knew at the time they were writing that they knew what they wrote would eventually be part of a canonized sacred text.

I doubt Mark thought after he wrote his account, "This book is so great it will eventually be considered on par with the Torah." Or Paul thinking, "These letters I'm writing are so inspired that it will be considered the very words of God."

Now, I'm not saying their writings are not inspired. But I doubt it's in the inerrant, perfect form when we speak of inerrancy.

[JehovahsWitness]

My main point is arguing it is not necessary to believe the Bible is inerrant.

Necessary for what ? To be authorative in what this forum? A person's life ? For salvation? If the latter, how would one know if it was necessary for salvation? By reading the bible which may or may not be wrong on the question of if it's necessary for salvation or not?


Anyway the point is, that in the absence of knowing what the word means, your question becomes meaningless. If error is anything anyone says it is (including the use of poetry, or references to the colour purple), then inerrancy cannot be established and you (general "you"/one) can move straight to declaring the bible full if errors. I suspect the gallery will applaud.



JW


Inerrancy [INDEX]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 512#985512

[otseng]

My main point is arguing it is not necessary to believe the Bible is inerrant.

Necessary for what ? To be authorative in what this forum? A person's life ? For salvation?

In this debate, is inerrancy necessary to believe the Bible is authoritative? We can also ask if the belief in inerrancy is necessary for salvation.

Anyway the point is, that in the absence of knowing what the word means, your question becomes meaningless.

I would agree that there is no consensus on what inerrancy means, even for those that hold to inerrancy. Another reason why the term should be dropped since the term is meaningless.

[JehovahsWitness]

In this debate, is inerrancy necessary to believe the Bible is authoritative? We can also ask if the belief in inerrancy is necessary for salvation.

Anyway the point is, that in the absence of knowing what the word means, your question becomes meaningless.

I would agree that there is no consensus on what inerrancy means, even for those that hold to inerrancy. Another reason why the term should be dropped since the term is meaningless.

I didnt say there is no consensus, (and the term is obviously not meaningless), I said "...in the absence of knowing what the word means". There doesn't have to be a consensus there just has to be a dictionary; most people that can read agree what inerrant means and I know what the word means because I speak English, it means "without error".

As for "authorative" , being without error is not a prerequisite for authority. One can attribute authority to a comic book full of nonsense; whether one views something as "authoritive" is a personal decision that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its content having any relation to reality.



Jw

[myth-one.com]

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.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

The original scriptures were written by men as inspired by God. Since the scriptures were inspired by God, there were absolutely no errors or contradictions in them. They were inerrant.

But notice that even our various Bibles do not state that our Bibles are inspired by God. Bibles state that the "scriptures" were inspired by God.

Thus, only the original scriptures are the inspired words of God! Any "scriptures" you read today are translations of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic language scriptures.

They reflect the originals only to the degree of accuracy of the translators.

Since there are many different translations of the scriptures, it would be difficult to declare any one as the authoritative or inerrant one.

Personally, I do not read Hebrew, Greek, or any Aramaic language.

My base translation used is the King James Version, and then compare that with other versions if the KJV seems contradictory or in error.

My last resort is an Interlinear Bible.

I've been able to resolve contradictions which I've found.

Just some thoughts.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 92 by onewithhim]

I personally don't think that anything written down by humans will be totally error-free.

Makes one question the wisdom of a deity who relies on humans to record his words rather than doing it himself. Not a big problem for an omnipotent being capable of creating and fine-tuning an entire universe.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 92 by onewithhim]

I personally don't think that anything written down by humans will be totally error-free.

Makes one question the wisdom of a deity who relies on humans to record his words rather than doing it himself. Not a big problem for an omnipotent being capable of creating and fine-tuning an entire universe.

The decalogue was written by God and maybe more as the fragments and the ark are not found. So, if we cede this point, we have at least 10 good rules to live by. They arent' hard or agregeious. I have always wondered what Moses originally brought down from the mountain.

[myth-one.com]

The decalogue was written by God and maybe more as the fragments and the ark are not found. So, if we cede this point, we have at least 10 good rules to live by. They arent' hard or agregeious. I have always wondered what Moses originally brought down from the mountain.

Actually, God made more than one copy of the ten commandments on separate pairs of stone tablets.

An unbroken identical second copy of the stone tablets was carried down Mount Sinai by Moses and successfully placed into the Ark of the Covenant.

The ark and two stone tablets were carried by the Israelites on their wanderings in the wilderness, and later placed by Solomon in the Temple at Jerusalem.

The Bible doesn't say what became of the fragments of the original tablets.

Probably left them where they fell.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 106 by brianbbs67]

So, if we cede this point, we have at least 10 good rules to live by.

Maybe a couple. The others are just pointless or designed to pander to God's infinite ego.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 107 by myth-one.com]

The ark and two stone tablets were carried by the Israelites on their wanderings in the wilderness, and later placed by Solomon in the Temple at Jerusalem.

Such an important document from God could have been handed down on platinum plates in multiple copies for every corner of the world. Stone tablets? The omnipotent God seems to be stuck in a primitive mindset limited to only the technology known at the time. Very telling.