On the Bible being inerrant.

[nobspeople]

I came across a post the other day as follows:
"My argument doesn’t rely on the Bible being inerrant."
It has meaning in the context of that discussion, of which I wasn't privy. But it got me thinking:

Does (or should, if you wish) a christian believe the bible is inerrant?

There seems to be a couple camps on the subject:
1) A christian should believe the bible is 100% true and accurate in every way
1a) This seems to indicate the bible was 'god written' (by whatever means you think necessary)
2) A christian should believe the bible is capable of being wrong or inaccurate
2a) This seems to indicate the bible may or may not have been 'god inspired'
2a1) To what extent is it god inspired and when do you know it is and when it isn't?
2b) To what percentage is the bible capable of being wrong or inaccurate?
3) A christian should be able to pick-n-choose their beliefs when they fit their chosen lifestyle agenda (this seems to be a popular choice for obvious reasons)

For discussion:
Do you believe the bible is infallible or not?
Why or why not?
How did you come to this belief?

NOTE: This should be about one's belief and why, not taken as a challenge to 'prove' the bible is or isn't correct and or devoid of errors, contradictions, lies or ½ truths.

[Avoice]

[Replying to tam in post #136]

You talk of mercy and grace. You don't think God is either of those.
Merciful? You accuse God of having no mercy.

This is your opinion of God on judgement day: A person stands before God to be judged. They are found guilty. God says you have to pay me or you go to prison. You don't have enough to pay what you owe. You are handcuffed and are being taken to prison. Someone in the courtroom stands up and says they'll pay what you owe. God accepts payment from the innocent and then let's you go free. THATS NOT MERCIFUL. OH NO..SOMEONE HAD TO PAY THE PRICE. That isn't a merciful God.
The God of Israel is merciful. You have a low opinion of him thinking he'd kill an innocent person to save the guilty.
And if you are not under the laws stated in the Hebrew Scriptures (old testament) then what makes you think you have protection under the sacrificial system? And if you think Jesus can save you keep reading. Sin sacrifices are only for UNINTENTIONAL SINS. And most sins people commit they knew they were wrong when they committed them. So you could kill Jesus a 100 times and you'll still be accountable for your lies, thefts, affairs etc. Because you knew it was wrong when you did it. Jesus can't do much of anything EVEN IF human sacrifice was acceptable.
Funny how Christians recoil in disgust when hearing about tribes people throwing babies and virgins in volcanos. Really? Barbaric eh? To appease the gods? And what about Jesus? Barbaric of it were true. But you believe and think it's okay. Okay

[Tcg]

So you could kill Jesus a 100 times and you'll still be accountable for your lies, thefts, affairs etc. Because you knew it was wrong when you did it.

Moderator Comment

You need to stop accusing others of wrongdoing. This is a debate site not a gossip column.

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.

[Mae von H]

I believe inerrancy is a doctrine that should be scraped. Most seminaries have already done this. But, in my opinion, the reason there are holdouts on the doctrine of inerrancy is they also believe its trustworthiness is dependent on inerrancy. I don't believe this is necessary. The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

I agree wholeheartedly!! It doesn’t have to be inerrant. It just needs to be true and it is. They’re not the same.

[TRANSPONDER]

That sums up the whole argument. Inerrancy is not the issue.Being generally relible (and thus arguable, True) is the point. The debate has n long been about evidence that the Bible is Not reliable, and Bible -believing denial of that evidence, respecting NT and Old.