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.

[onewithhim]

Though there might be more, I could only find two Christian groups that clearly state they believe in Biblical inerrancy without any qualifications - the Southern Baptists and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. It appears what they mean by the Bible is a Bible that you can hold in your hands (any English translation of the Bible). They don't seem to qualify it by saying any particular translation is better than another.

“That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19–20, 2012, do hereby reaffirm our belief in and adherence to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.�
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1225/on- ... -inerrancy

"We therefore believe, teach and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth."
https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doct ... principles

RESPONSE: Yes fundamentalist stick together. But can be proven inaccurate. Do the four gospels say that Jesus was crucified on same day? Ask a fundamentalist. Then ask someone who is reality oriented.

I like what otseng posted about C.S. Lewis. Lewis said that the ancient world had no obssession with dates and numbers like we do today. It shouldn't matter to us whether Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14 or Nisan 15 or some other date. There is enough truth there to satisfy us for what happened and why.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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

Before I respond, can you please explain what you mean by authoritative?

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

Inerrant means free from error. The Bible (OT and NT) is not free from error. The Bible certainly contains scribal errors (such as copyist errors, translation errors, word choices or translations being made based upon a lack of understanding and/or the bias of the scribes and 'teachers'). And of course Jeremiah the prophet also spoke of the lying pen of the scribes (Jeremiah 8:8), just as Christ said (from Matt 23), "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees."



Many use Paul's words to Timothy to support inerrancy because Paul states that "all scripture is inspired..." This is a true statement, but a) this does not mean that scripture is free from error (as explained in the first paragraph above), and b) not everything in the bible is inspired. As per Christ, scripture included the law of Moses, the Psalms and the Prophets (Matt 24:44-45)... and the prophets state that the Word of God came to them. And inspired is that which is given "in spirit". That makes Revelation scripture as well. Because the Revelation came from the Word of God/Christ (Rev 1:1-2), and John wrote down what he received while he was in the spirit (Rev 1:10). Revelation is the only book in the NT that claims to be inspired (and so, scripture).



The gospels on the other hand are not inspired (they were not given "in spirit"). They are testimonial accounts of what witnesses heard and saw from Christ. Luke conducted an investigation and wrote an orderly account of the events as had been handed down by those who were eyewitnesses to Christ. The disciple Christ loved who wrote the gospel called "John" wrote his own testimony as an eyewitness and apostle of Christ. This does not mean their testimonies are not true; these are just eyewitness testimonies as opposed to that which is given 'in spirit'.






Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 129 by onewithhim]

Well sure it would make a difference. What about trying to say that he was in the tomb the sane as the sane amount if time Jonah was in the whale. Two nights three days? Three night? Yeah it makes a difference. Becsuse the gospels disagree

[Avoice]

There are many errors in translations of the. Most are frivolous. Its the ones that change the message which are a crime and inexcusable. No excuse for omitting words.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 130 by tam]

I would add that all references to scripture, ALL, refer to the Torah and Prophets as the NT was not collected yet. Even the word scripture is a suspect term as the plain meaning in the Koine is writings. Scripture appears to be an English invention.

And there stands a lot of mistranslation, misleading translation and insertions in the NT.

Hebrews has a couple in the KJ. Chapter 4:9 omits Sabbath altogether but its there in the Greek.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/4.htm

That link also shows Christs actual name as translated, Joshua. Just scroll to verse nine.

[otseng]

Before I respond, can you please explain what you mean by authoritative?

The Bible is the highest source that all Christians must submit to. Any doctrine or teaching from the church must have Biblical support. It supersedes the authority of people, traditions, opinions, and creeds.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 132 by Avoice]

I don't think anyone really argues for the inerrancy of Bible translations. At least not anyone here in this thread.

[otseng]

I've argued that inerrancy is not necessary to adhere to. One can still have a high view of the Bible and consider it authoritative and not be an inerrantist.

I'll even go further. I believe it is a divisive and potentially damaging doctrine.

Even though it's not a necessary belief, well respected people have been attacked and even labeled a heretic for not adhering to inerrancy.

Dr Mike Licona has been attacked just for suggesting something might not be literal and was led to leave his position in the SBC.

2010, Dr. Mike Licona, an evangelical professor, wrote a book titled The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. In this book, he suggested that the account of the resurrected saints walking through the city might be “apocalyptic imagery� (Mat. 27:51-53). In other words, he suggested that the events did not actually happen, but that it was lore or legend. Subsequently, Licona resigned from his position with the Southern Baptists and at Southern Evangelical Seminary.

https://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-i ... important/

The theological bullying, the termination of a few professors in SBC seminaries (and intimidation of others) for expressing their opinion that the interpretation of Matthew’s raised saints I had proposed in my book was not incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the deliberate misrepresentation of my words, and the working behind the scenes of some leaders to marginalize me — all this revealed the underbelly of fundamentalism.

https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrm ... interview/

Peter Enns was suspended from Westminster Theological Seminary for not taking a hardline position on inerrancy.

Enns claims that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, however the way he describes Scripture seems to counter that belief.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blog ... ntroversy/

Charles Augustus Briggs at Union Theological Seminary was tried for heresy because of the issue of inerrancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in ... tes,_1893)

But even worse of all, the doctrine of inerrancy can lead to apostasy.

Bart Ehrman's own evangelical faith was undermined, initially at least he claims, by his abandonment of the belief in inerrancy.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... inerrancy/

If one has a strict adherence to Biblical inerrancy and it is a foundational belief, it is just a few steps away from leaving the faith. With just a cursory knowledge of the Bible, one realizes there are errors in the Bible. Even if one can explain most of them, if one is found that cannot be explained, then inerrancy goes out the window.

However, the problem is not the Bible, but the term inerrancy itself. It is a meaningless term. Fighting over a meaningless term is fruitless and unnecessary. Basing one's Christian worldview on inerrancy is building on a faulty foundation.

So, the term inerrancy should be discarded.

[JehovahsWitness]

The Bible is the highest source that all Christians must submit to. Any doctrine or teaching from the church must have Biblical support. It supersedes the authority of people, traditions, opinions, and creeds.

How would this translate if the bible seems to make a historical or factual statement which is either unsupported or in direct conflict with present historical (or scientific) consensus. For example the writer of Luke refers to

"This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

.


Of course there is always the option of proposing this was a figurative Quirinius and a metaphoric Syria, but many believers will dismiss Luke's statement as simply being an inaccuracy. I'm not inviting a discussion of whether the statement is an error or not, I am asking ..

Does being "truthful" and "authoritive" mean that in the above example one has the option that the bible is correct and the current historrical consensus is erroneous?

In short does the bible supersede the opinions of historians and scientists?


FABTICATED STORIES OR REAL EVENTS

Did the Exodus take place?

Can we dismiss John's statement that Jesus (The Word) existed before the earth was created?

Was Jesus claim to be older than Abraham words put in his mouth by over enthusiastic biographies?

Did Jesus really walk on water or was this a made up story ?

Again and again I read on these pages Christians saying "That probably didn't happen", "I think that that was an interpolation", "A loving God could never have asked for a blood sacrifices that's just pagan thinking added by the writers attributing the command to Gd", "the bible is wrong" , "Moses never existed..." Such believers seem to think that adding ".... but the fact that the bible is wrong on these and many matters is not important" doesn't undermine its contents. Is that your position?


I am not asking for a discussion whether these points but am asking the general point, barring metaphor or miracle, does the bible contain entirely fabricated narratives, commands and stories which in reality originated in the imagination of human writers ?


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The Bible is the highest source that all Christians must submit to. Any doctrine or teaching from the church must have Biblical support. It supersedes the authority of people, traditions, opinions, and creeds.

So the bible supersedes all opinions, even your own? From an earlier discussion you say...

...I believe it is possible for the original Biblical authors to be fallible in recalling events in their lives. .... It's entirely possible things they recounted could be factually incorrect.

Does the bible supersede the opinion that the bible writers recounted "factually incorrect" events?



JW