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]

[JehovahsWitness]

As I said, there is no need to debate specific points, I am trying to assertain to what degree you believe Gods thoughts as recorded in scripture have been mixed with human thinking.

To confligate a few spelling mistakes, inversions of fixed expressions, omissions and one or two failed attempts to corrupt its contents to wholesale declarations that our current bible is interwoven with fiction, fabrication and errors is absolutely unwarranted and unsupported by what we know about the transmission of scripture.

I was going to post a response, but I think it's going to open a huge can of worms. ]

Your position has opened them whether you wish to deal with them or not.

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 ?

I am not asking for a discussion whether these points are historical realities or not 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 ?

That is the real crux of the matter worms or not. To claim the bible contains fabricated narratives and manmade doctrine undermines its truthfulness and reliability regardless of claims such fabrications are "unimportant" or "irrelevant to salvation".






JW

Go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE : AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION and ... BIBLICAL INERRANCY

[tam]

Peace to you,

Then no, the bible is not (and cannot be) authoritative - and this is REGARDLESS of whether the bible is errant or inerrant.

Well, for the purposes of this thread (and this subforum), the authority of the Bible is assumed and is not open for debate.

Yes, I understand that rule for this subforum, but that is an authority that you are giving the bible, and others either agree with or agree to respect that in this subforum. Making the discussions here more along the lines of such and such is true "according to the bible..."


I don't really understand how the authority of the bible can be assumed if the question for debate is asking if the bible can be authoritative and errant at the same time. Nevertheless, I posted support from the bible to show that it does not teach the doctrine of inerrancy, and it also does not teach that it is the highest authority for a Christian.




Peace again to you!

[tam]

Peace to you Eloi,

[Replying to tam]

So you are relying on your own mind ...

That is not what I said.


Peace again.

[tam]

[tam]

Peace to you!

[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.

Yes, that is interesting. I am more familiar with the NIV, which translates "Sabbath rest", so I knew it was in there. I did not know the KJV left it out. That being said, I have discovered that the NIV takes a few liberties of its own in other places.

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

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

Also interesting, thank you, I had not noticed. That would be His name translated into English. (though I think the Joshua being referred to here in this verse is the Joshua who led Israel after Moses died)




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

[otseng]

To claim the bible contains fabricated narratives and manmade doctrine undermines its truthfulness and reliability regardless of claims such fabrications are "unimportant" or "irrelevant to salvation".

I've made no claim either way. I've claimed it is not necessary to believe in inerrancy to be a Christian and to accept the Bible as authoritative.

Even if the Bible has errors, it is still true and reliable and trustworthy. This is obviously true because when people generally talk about the Bible, they are referring to translations. We regard Bible translations as true, reliable, and trustworthy -- even when they have errors in them (at a minimum they have copyist errors).

When people speak about the Bible, the only time it refers to the autographs is when talking about inerrancy. Since the autographs do not exist, it is a doctrine rooted in the ethereal.

Rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy does not mean we claim the Bible is full of errors so we can just throw out the entire Bible. Ironically, it is only those who adhere to inerrancy that would need to throw out the Bible if there is a single error in it.

It is possible to have a high view of scripture while not accepting inerrancy. As I've pointed out, C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright both have this position. These men are well respected across denominational lines.

We can go on and discuss how to approach the Bible if it's not inerrant. But before we go there, what is your position on the question in the OP? Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

[otseng]

2 Peter 1:21 is another proof text for the doctrine of inerrancy.

The term inspiration explains the process by which God communicated His message through human beings into the written words found in the Bible without any error. How could imperfect men be expected to produce a perfect Bible? skeptics often ask. Peter answers that question: For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:21).

https://ptv.org/devotional/the-bible-is ... -inerrant/

[2Pe 1:20-21 KJV] 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

It's a bit of a stretch to claim this passage means that every single word in the Bible is inerrant. First off, it does not explicitly say this. Also, even if prophets spoke the direct words of God, it doesn't necessarily mean that refers to every written word in the Old Testament (or New Testament). We have OT prophetic books and we have non-prophetic books. The only book in the NT that claims to be prophetic is Revelation. Also, like 2 Tim 3:16, the purpose of the passage is not to make a claim on the nature of scripture, but rather how it should be applied.

[2Pe 1:19 KJV] 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

[JehovahsWitness]

To claim the bible contains fabricated narratives and manmade doctrine undermines its truthfulness and reliability regardless of claims such fabrications are "unimportant" or "irrelevant to salvation".

I've made no claim either way.

I did not say you did. *I* am stating the above, in short I am going on record that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses I hold that ...:

The bible contains no fabricated narratives, commands or accounts which in reality originated solely in the imagination of human writers ?

Although no translation is "inspired" nor can any be considered "perfect" none of the bible's today contain fabricated narratives and stories presented as historical fact that in fact originated in the imagination of humans.

To confligate a few spelling mistakes, inversions of fixed expressions, omissions and one or two failed attempts to corrupt its contents to wholesale declarations that our current bibles are interwoven with fiction, fabrication and errors is absolutely unwarranted and unsupported by what we know about the transmission of scripture.

If that is not what you are saying you will no doubt see no need to challenge any of the above. If you choose to challenge the above please be so kind as to present concrete examples so I can clearly see what you are talking about.



JW





RELATED POSTS


RELATED POSTS

Why would God choose to communicate via the written word?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 08#p766608

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

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

Does Jeremiah 8:8 imply that the scribes in Jeremiah's day had corrupted scripture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p779409

If bible translations are not inspired, how can they be trusted?
viewtopic.php?p=986376#p986376

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

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

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

[otseng]

The bible contains no fabricated narratives, commands or accounts which in reality originated solely in the imagination of human writers ?

Although no translation is "inspired" nor can any be considered "perfect" none of the bible's today contain fabricated narratives and stories presented as historical fact that in fact originated in the imagination of humans.

To confligate a few spelling mistakes, inversions of fixed expressions, omissions and one or two failed attempts to corrupt its contents to wholesale declarations that our current bibles are interwoven with fiction, fabrication and errors is absolutely unwarranted and unsupported by what we know about the transmission of scripture.

If that is not what you are saying you will no doubt see no need to challenge any of the above.

I can generally accept that. So, I'll take it then you accept the statement it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant while being authoritative.