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'll summarize my arguments...

I argue it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative.

The layperson view of inerrancy is the Bible is without any errors. They typically mean a Bible translation and are not thinking of the autographs. However, this is not how it is defined. The Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy, considered the authoritative view on inerrancy, says inerrancy only applies to the autographs.

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture,"
http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- ... -inerrancy

More sources affirms this definition.

I could find only a couple of groups that defines inerrancy without qualification.

It is widely accepted the translations have errors in them. At a minimum they have copyist errors. One of the top proponents of inerrancy, Norman Geisler, also acknowledges this.

So, Bible translations can be considered authoritative without being inerrant.

There is no general consensus of what inerrancy is. And definitions generally include many clauses to them.

Inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar.
Inerrancy does not exclude the use either of figures of speech or of a given literary genre.
Inerrancy does not demand historical or semantic precision.
Inerrancy does not demand the technical language of modern science.
Inerrancy does not require verbal exactness in the citation of the Old Testament by the New.
Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice).
Inerrancy does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account or of combined accounts where those are involved.
Inerrancy does not demand the infallibility or inerrancy of the noninspired sources used by biblical writers.

https://www.efca.org/blog/understanding ... -inerrancy

First, as we noted above, the Bible's view of inspiration is not a sort of mechanical "dictation theory."
Second, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require that we impose upon the Bible standards of accuracy and evaluation that are alien to it.
Third, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require the Bible to have been transmitted without mistakes in the copying process.
Fourth, when properly understood the doctrine of inerrancy does not entail the necessity of rational proof that the Bible is without error.
Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion.

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a ... debate.php

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. 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

These exceptions are like the addition of epicycles in Greek cosmology to hold their theory together. This hints at special pleading and points to incorrect assumptions.

The term “inerrancy� doesn’t work because, in the words of Roger Olson, the very definition of the word succumbs to “the death of a thousand qualifications.�

https://www.missioalliance.org/why-bibl ... esnt-work/

One common qualification to inerrancy is that the Bible must be correctly interpreted. But, who has the "correct" interpretation of the Bible?

There are several Christian denominations that do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy. Fuller theological seminary, a conservative evangelical seminary, has a nuanced view of inerrancy. They seem to reject it on one hand, but is not willing to abandon the term.

There are also several apologists that do not place a high value on the doctrine of inerrancy, including William Lane Craig and C.S. Lewis. Biblical scholar, N.T. Wright is not an inerrantist. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer also rejected inerrancy. However, all of these men have a high view of scripture.

"Bonhoeffer did not believe in biblical inerrancy, but followed Karl Barth’s view that Scripture is true, even if it is not empirically accurate."
https://www.equip.org/article/troubling ... -theology/

The primary proof text of the doctrine is 2 Timothy 3:16. I argue it is weak support for inerrancy. Another proof text is 2 Peter 1:21. I argue it is a stretch to use this to support inerrancy of the Bible.

The doctrine is also divisive and potentially damaging.

So, I believe the term inerrancy should no longer be used. It is a term that is misused, misunderstood, full of qualifications, meaningless, unnecessary, divisive, and damaging. It is time to jettison the doctrine of inerrancy.

[brianbbs67]

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

Peace also. God said in the Tanakh(oT) that He would send another Joshua to deliver the nation. If I remember right, it was in one of the prophets. Any way, the part I find interesting is that we have a name in English that is = to Yeshua. Joshua. Why did the English translators of the KJ choose to use Jesus when an exact translation was available in English but not so in Greek?

Hijack over. Just something I noticed.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Emphasis MINE


No, I do not. Colloquially when people say "the bible" they are not refering to "translations" or copies, they are refering to the Word of God made available to mankind in written form. To say "the bible has errors" gives the misleading impression that scripture cannot be relied upon and we must decide for themselves which stories and commands are fabrications and which are not. This may seem pedantic to someone that is approaching this from a purely academic, intellectual position but we Jehovah's Witnesses are "in the field" as it were, dealing with real people, with real issues looking for reliable answers and communicating in the everyday speech of the common man. In the real world, to use such phraseology would cause confusion and undermine confidence in the bible.

Many people have lost loved ones to death and are grieving, or are asking whether God accepts this or that behaviour. They are trying to identify the true religion (ie the one that the Creator approves of rather one that they personally like or were raised in) such people are looking for truth. Readers on this forum may be surprised since most do not preach from house to house, how many people sincerely want to know what GOD has to say on the matter of faith. To say to such spiritually hungry ones "The bible has errors in it, some of it is from God and some are just mistakes but don't worry about that, it's still "authoritive" .... anyway this is what it says..." is not only misleading but is entirely out of harmony with the rhetoric of Jesus Christ who quoted written ( copied and translated) scripture with no hesitation.

Jesus said to him: Go away, Satan! For it is written: It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service

MATTHEW 19:4-6

In reply he said: Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female+ 5 and said: For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’?+ 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.

LUKE 4 :17 -21

So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: Jehovah's spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free,+ 19 to preach Jehovah's acceptable year. 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.

You might notice Jesus evidently did not feel compelled to add "But of course who knows if Isaiah wrote this down correctly, after all it wasnt a dictation the copiests were not inspired so they may have made a mistake so take it all with a pinch of salt". Why not, because he no doubt knew do so would undermine confidence in the written word of God to which he would refer throughout his ministry. Like Jesus we quote what is written as the Word of God, not of man, and thus send a clear message of confidence to those we teach.


JW




RELATED POSTS

What does the term "the bible" refer to?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

Are there errors in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p356827

Can you trust the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1059125#p1059125

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

Has the integrity of the bible been corrupted by copies errors?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p985365

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

Should figurative or poetic language in scripture be classified as "biblical errors"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 43#p985543

Did Jesus suggest copies and translations of holy scripture were erronious?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

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

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

[Difflugia]

Peace also. God said in the Tanakh(oT) that He would send another Joshua to deliver the nation. If I remember right, it was in one of the prophets. Any way, the part I find interesting is that we have a name in English that is = to Yeshua. Joshua. Why did the English translators of the KJ choose to use Jesus when an exact translation was available in English but not so in Greek?

Hijack over. Just something I noticed.

Consider it an editorial decision. The problem exists even in the Old Testament because some of the names there are Hebrew transliterations of names from other languages into Hebrew. How should we write the name of Persian king in Ezra 4:7? In Hebrew, it's �ַרְתַּחְשַ�֗שְׂתָּ� and would normally be transliterated into English as "Artachshashta," which itself already has problems because the sound represented by "ch" has no direct English analog (it's the same as the one in "Chanukka"). The Persian would have been pronounced as something like "Artax-shatsa," but we know the name as Ἀ�ταξέ�ξης from Greek histories, transliterated into English as Artaxerxes.

So the translator/editor has to decide which one to use. Is the goal to be as close as possible to the man's original name? To be as close as possible to the (perhaps inspired) Hebrew? To use a name recognized by the widest audience to avoid confusion? Different priorities provide different answers.

As an interesting example, the same problem must be addressed when translating the Septuagint, itself a Greek translation of the Old Testament. The editors of the NETS (A New English Translation of the Septuagint) decided to render the names as transliterations from the Greek even when the Hebrew would be pronounced differently. Here is Joshua 1:1-2 from the NETS:

And it happened after the death of Moyses that the Lord spoke to Iesous son of Naue, Moyses’ assistant, saying, “Moyses my attendant is dead. Now then rise up to cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them.

The New Testament texts we have are in Greek and aren't translations. When should a translation more accurately reflect the text and when should the translator help interpret? It's not always an easy decision.

[Eloi]

[Replying to post 162 by Difflugia]

We know that Christians in the first century used the Septuagint very frequently. We could ask ourselves if they mentioned the names of the Hebrew characters in Greek as translated in the LXX and commonly mentioned in a world where Greek was an international language or in Hebrew as originally stated in the Hebrew Scriptures. Interesting to think about it ... but I guess it is matter for another thread.

[otseng]

Colloquially when people say "the bible" they are not refering to "translations" or copies, they are refering to the Word of God made available to mankind in written form.

I would disagree that they are not referring to translations. When the everyday person is talking about the Bible, it would refer to something that they can hold in their hands - a Bible translation, not the autographs. Your average Christian probably wouldn't even know what is an autograph or what languages they are written in.

To say "the bible has errors" gives the misleading impression that scripture cannot be relied upon and we must decide for themselves which stories and commands are fabrications and which are not.

There is no need to say "the Bible has errors". It is enough to just cease to use the term inerrancy. One can still talk about the Bible being reliable without mentioning the term inerrancy. Also, nothing needs to be said about errors until someone asks about it. One can discuss further about errors if they are truly curious about it.

To say "the bible has errors" gives the misleading impression that scripture cannot be relied upon and we must decide for themselves which stories and commands are fabrications and which are not.

Here lies the problem why the term inerrancy will not easily go away.

Most people will infer that if someone is not an inerrantist then he must be an errantist. It is not an either/or scenario. There's exists a third option where neither is claimed.

For groups/people that do not subscribe to inerrancy, they often hedge their position for fear of being considered an errantist and being cast out as a heretic. This fear is so strong that it makes having an honest discussion of inerrancy difficult.

This may seem pedantic to someone that is approaching this from a purely academic, intellectual position but we Jehovah's Witnesses are "in the field" as it were, dealing with real people, with real issues looking for reliable answers and communicating in the everyday speech of the common man. In the real world, to use such phraseology would cause confusion and undermine confidence in the bible.

Ironically, I also believe this. Using the theological term (and also un-Biblical I might add) inerrancy causes confusion. I'm not arguing my position just as an intellectual exercise, but it has important real world impact.

We have many students who enter college leaving the faith. I believe part of the problem is we have not educated them correctly. Among other misinformation, they are taught the Bible is inerrant while growing up in church. When they reach college, they are challenged with errors in the Bible and then their faith in the Bible, and Christianity, erodes. This is what happened to Bart Ehrman, who is considered an expert in the New Testament. You would think that as one learns more about the Bible, their faith would grow. But, his situation was the opposite. As he learned more, he faith waned. Even though he knew his Bible, his foundations were attacked because he was an inerrantist. Now, he has now completely abandoned the faith because of this doctrine. He is not an isolated case. But, he's just a high profile example of the destructive effects of the doctrine of inerrancy.

You might notice Jesus evidently did not feel compelled to add "But of course who knows if Isaiah wrote this down correctly, after all it wasnt a dictation the copiests were not inspired so they may have made a mistake so take it all with a pinch of salt". Why not, because he no doubt knew do so would undermine confidence in the written word of God to which he would refer throughout his ministry.

Neither did Jesus say there are no errors in the scriptures. The closest thing he said was:

[Mat 5:18 KJV] 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Technically speaking, all he was stating is that the law will be fulfilled.

We should not avoid the truth in order to make our message "clean and presentable". We should not place our confidence in the Bible by avoiding the hard issues. The hard issues cannot be avoided indefinitely. Confidence should be based on the truth, not on how we might make other people feel.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 162 by Difflugia]

I came to the same conclusion that you did regarding that king. He was the Xerkses we know from Greek history. You are also right that editorial choice does enter the equation. If words could just be what they are.

[JehovahsWitness]

Colloquially when people say "the bible" they are not refering to "translations" or copies, they are refering to the Word of God made available to mankind in written form.

I would disagree that they are not referring to translations.

I have 35 years of experience much of that full time talking to people face to face on the topic of the bible, ordinary people at the doors, in the street and in their own homes and belong to an organisation of people that has spent billions of hours doing the same so I feel qualified to affirm that that is not the case.

There is no need to say "the Bible has errors". It is enough to just cease to use the term inerrancy.

Then don't use it, people rarely do anyway. This discussion is purely "academic" and barring going around saying "We don't know what God wants since the bible has been changed..." has little practical impact on real faith.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Neither did Jesus say there are no errors in the scriptures.

Why, in your opinion is there no record of Jesus having a hard discussion, even in private with his Apostles on the possibility that there were errors in said copies? Could it be that whatever "errors" may have been present, would have been minor (spelling variations, alternative phraseology ect) and ultimately insignificant ?

Common sense demands Christians be digilent in the care they take when copying and translating holy scripture and historically this has indeed been the case. Jehovah's Witnesses too have produced a (imho)quality translation in order to address some of the issues raised in this thread. Since you are not suggesting the bible has histories, accounts narratives and details which are in fact fabrications I have no issue with what you are saying in essence, although banning a word may prove ineffective since it reflects a legitimate notion.


JW



RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus suggest copies and translations of holy scripture were erronious?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

How do Jehovah's Witnesses view the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 25#p873125

Go to other posts related to...

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

[otseng]

Since you are not suggesting the bible has histories, accounts narratives and details which are in fact fabrications I have no issue with what you are saying in essence, although banning a word may prove ineffective since it reflects a legitimate notion.

Right, I'm not arguing there are fabrications in the Bible in this thread (though I might get into that in another thread). Since you in essence have no problem with what I'm saying, I'll leave it at that.

Going on to other debates...