What does inerrancy mean?

[Difflugia]

Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses share a doctrine known as "soul sleep," such that the dead lose awareness upon death and remain unaware until the resurrection. One corollary to this is that there is no such thing as a ghost in the sense of the sentient spirit of a dead person. A glaring biblical contradiction to this doctrinal view is 1 Samuel 28, where a medium successfully summons the spirit of the late prophet Samuel to speak with Saul.

The attempted harmonization of this contradiction is the assertion that the summoned entity is actually a demon rather than the spirit of Samuel. The claim is that the biblical narrator is writing from the point of view of the medium, who is mistaken. At the same time, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses also share the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant.

What practical limitations does this understanding of inerrancy place on interpretation of the text? Is this understanding compatible with other Christian definitions of inerrancy, like The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?

[Difflugia]

There are monistic authors in the Bible that don't believe that there's a spirit to depart the body, like the author of Ecclesiastes.

He is the only one

There's a difference in the Old Testament between authors that treat the "soul" (nephesh) as something that a person or living thing is (monism) or something that a person has (dualism). Genesis predominantly speaks of living things being souls. Note in Genesis 2:7, for example, that the man (or Adam) became a living nephesh. The later Deuteronomistic history speaks predominantly of people having a soul. An easy example here is Elijah restoring the widow's son to life in 1 Kings 17:17-24. In verses 21-22, the child's nephesh returns to the child. The nephesh is now a distinct part of the dualistic whole.

Do they accept that view of his as well? Cherry picking.

I agree. My point is that that's the direct result of the doctrine of inerrancy, or at least that the biblical authors speak with a single unified voice.

He thought all of life useless. Not a single Bible author thought this.

I disagree. When the Ecclesiastical author ("Qoheleth") speaks of life being "vanity," the word is much closer to the English "ephemeral" than "useless." Qoheleth says to make the most of the life we have because there isn't more of it and the results won't outlast you.

But none of them were depressed to the point of suicide. Why does anyone credit that author with knowing something?

"Even a living dog is better off than a dead lion," isn't the sentiment of someone that's suicidal.

That contradicts the story of the necromancer of Endor summoning the spirit of Samuel from somewhere to talk to Saul.

Only for those who know nothing about Solomon’s despondency and black outlook on life.

That seems like a non sequitur to me. Even if I were to agree about Qoheleth's attitude, how does that affect the truth of the writing?

You said that you're not bothered by the contradiction because you don't believe the Bible's inerrant.

No, I said the JWs theology is wrong and there is no contradiction.

I'm trying to understand what you mean. If the Bible were inerrant, would it be a contradiction? Your position seems to be that you don't think Ecclesiastes should be canonical, so it can't contradict something else in the Bible that you like better. Am I misunderstanding you?

But understanding takes some education.

That's why I'm trying to be patient with you.

Much of what he wrote was not matching how life really is unless you’re psychologically despondent.

What did Qoheleth get wrong? Again, I disagree with your assessment of "psychologically despondent," but even so, I'm not sure what you think is "not matching how life really is."

That contradicts Ecclesiastes, but it doesn't matter if the Bible isn't inerrant and its authors are allowed to contradict each other.

If you don’t want to see the purposes of the pieces but think all are the same, no one can help you understand.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It looks like a poor attempt at a couched insult, but is there an argument in there?

On the other hand, the Witnesses claim that the Bible is inerrant, so both Ecclesiastes and 1 Samuel must both somehow be true, even though only one can be true at most. Their solution is to choose the account in Ecclesiastes as the valid one. They then change the account of Samuel's ghost, but still claim that it's somehow inerrant.

Not my problem.

You told me that I'm missing the point. As OP, I was telling you what the point is. If you want to engage with a different point, that's fine, but at least have the courtesy to let me know you're intentionally changing the subject rather than just getting confused.

As I said, the purposes of the author are being ignored.

I'm really trying to understand your argument. What do you think Qoheleth meant, such that it doesn't contradict a conscious afterlife?

The Witnesses, however, seem to have taken harmonizing this particular contradiction to a brazenness not normally seen, to the point that they've changed how the Bible reads to accommodate their particular doctrine.

Not my problem.

It is what this thread is about, though.

[Mae von H]

There are monistic authors in the Bible that don't believe that there's a spirit to depart the body, like the author of Ecclesiastes.

He is the only one

There's a difference in the Old Testament between authors that treat the "soul" (nephesh) as something that a person or living thing is (monism) or something that a person has (dualism). Genesis predominantly speaks of living things being souls. Note in Genesis 2:7, for example, that the man (or Adam) became a living nephesh. The later Deuteronomistic history speaks predominantly of people having a soul. An easy example here is Elijah restoring the widow's son to life in 1 Kings 17:17-24. In verses 21-22, the child's nephesh returns to the child. The nephesh is now a distinct part of the dualistic whole.

Words do not define what the subject is, they try to describe it. By using one word in a sentence, the author is not stating paragraphs of what the matter is. That the human has a soul does not change between testaments. When God breathed into Adam, he became a living soul. When Jesus breathed onto the disciples, they received the Holy Spirit. All of the verses you quote, save from despondent Solomon indicate that man has a spirit that departs as you said. Where do we disagree?

Do they accept that view of his as well? Cherry picking.

I agree. My point is that that's the direct result of the doctrine of inerrancy, or at least that the biblical authors speak with a single unified voice.

The doctrine of inerrancy does not mean the authors all speak with one voice. They were different men with different reasons for writing. That they knew the same God is unifying. Not that they wrote "inerrantly." If the 10 children of the same parents would write about their parents, they knew the same two people and would have that unity. But it does not mean they all write exactly the same and for the same purpose.

He thought all of life useless. Not a single Bible author thought this.

I disagree. When the Ecclesiastical author ("Qoheleth") speaks of life being "vanity," the word is much closer to the English "ephemeral" than "useless." Qoheleth says to make the most of the life we have because there isn't more of it and the results won't outlast you.

But this makes no sense. If Solomon did not know that things don't last, why did people think he was wise? I mean the dumbest of men know that things don't last. And the things he wrote he did, one does not get the impression that he was surprised that they don't last. Clearly he was trying to find meaning and purpose and did not find it in all the things he did. Life was meaningless, that was his conclusion, not that, surprise surprise, things do not last. That reinterpretation makes no sense.

But none of them were depressed to the point of suicide. Why does anyone credit that author with knowing something?

"Even a living dog is better off than a dead lion," isn't the sentiment of someone that's suicidal.

"Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die" sounds like suicide. Besides, the rest of the piece is similar. No one thinks it was a man who would have written about the joys of life.

That contradicts the story of the necromancer of Endor summoning the spirit of Samuel from somewhere to talk to Saul.

Only for those who know nothing about Solomon’s despondency and black outlook on life.

That seems like a non sequitur to me. Even if I were to agree about Qoheleth's attitude, how does that affect the truth of the writing?

The only verse those who deny eternity quote, is Solomon. That is it. And when we look at Solomon's attitude in the latter years of his life, we do not see a man whose view we ought to emulate. So his writings need to be taken in that light.

You said that you're not bothered by the contradiction because you don't believe the Bible's inerrant.

No, I said the JWs theology is wrong and there is no contradiction.

I'm trying to understand what you mean. If the Bible were inerrant, would it be a contradiction? Your position seems to be that you don't think Ecclesiastes should be canonical, so it can't contradict something else in the Bible that you like better. Am I misunderstanding you?

You ask good questions and make me think. How shall I explain my position? I am fairly well read for the educational level of society today although not in comparison with the last generation. In none of the books I have read, does the reader claim inerrancy. I do not claim inerrancy either. And yet I have learned a great deal from these works. So those who read, do not think in terms of "is this inerrant" or not. Depending upon the book, they might think, is this true and do I need to alter something in my life based on this information. That is how one thinks of books. Why does the Bible have to be different when it comes to "is it true" or not? The Bible is true. The bits one can test I have tested and found it to be rock solid. The bits I cannot test (like the lives of the ancients) I take as accurate although this does not affect my choices much.

But understanding takes some education.

That's why I'm trying to be patient with you.

I very much appreciate that.

Much of what he wrote was not matching how life really is unless you’re psychologically despondent.

What did Qoheleth get wrong? Again, I disagree with your assessment of "psychologically despondent," but even so, I'm not sure what you think is "not matching how life really is."

Life is not useless, a vapor, nothing. The things we accomplish are not all vanity. We should not "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." I can pull out more that does not fit real life unless one has made certain choices in life. Solomon made those choices.

That contradicts Ecclesiastes, but it doesn't matter if the Bible isn't inerrant and its authors are allowed to contradict each other.

If you don’t want to see the purposes of the pieces but think all are the same, no one can help you understand.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It looks like a poor attempt at a couched insult, but is there an argument in there?

Was not meant to be an insult. My apologies. The Bible is a collection of books with different purposes. I will give an example. I have heard countless atheists complain about the brutality of war described in the Bible. They seem to think every sentence is giving a moral imperative. They do not see that part of the pieces are history including the history of events in a war and war is brutal. They think every sentence is an example of how to live. That the Bible describes war because men make war eludes them. That the Bible describes the state of slavery because men make and keep slaves eludes them. That is all I meant. Men do evil and the Bible says so and sometimes describes it.

On the other hand, the Witnesses claim that the Bible is inerrant, so both Ecclesiastes and 1 Samuel must both somehow be true, even though only one can be true at most. Their solution is to choose the account in Ecclesiastes as the valid one. They then change the account of Samuel's ghost, but still claim that it's somehow inerrant.

Not my problem.

You told me that I'm missing the point. As OP, I was telling you what the point is. If you want to engage with a different point, that's fine, but at least have the courtesy to let me know you're intentionally changing the subject rather than just getting confused.

We can discuss inerrancy but we cannot discuss the mindset of JWs as I am not one. If you only want JWs to answer, I can bow out.

As I said, the purposes of the author are being ignored.

I'm really trying to understand your argument. What do you think Qoheleth meant, such that it doesn't contradict a conscious afterlife?

It is the writings of am who once was very wise but whose wives got him into the occult and all the joy of his life was gone. He was writing out those thoughts, the thoughts a despondent man has.

The Witnesses, however, seem to have taken harmonizing this particular contradiction to a brazenness not normally seen, to the point that they've changed how the Bible reads to accommodate their particular doctrine.

Not my problem.

It is what this thread is about, though.

Shall I leave the discussion as I am not a JW and have no respect for them knowing a fair bit about their history?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think our pal Mae has a point. Though 7th day adventists and JWs hay have a take on inerrancy,minerrancy can mean a lot o things and is amatter of discussion in Bible apologetics. And whatever the OP, threads do range widely.

I would sympathise with mae's view that she does not care on how sects whose views she does not share have a dogma of inerrancy - other than examples of one meaning or another.

She or anyone else would, I think, be entitled to say how they think the Bible is inerrant, or at least accurate or reliable, divinely inspired or not, As I would to stray into (say) an argument that differing interpretations or meanings of inerrancy would tend to rule out any claim that God was making sure that His Book was inerrant or at least, reliable.

[benchwarmer]

At the same time, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses also share the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant.

I find it ironic that some of these groups retranslate the texts to try and make them look inerrant. They are just putting their own errors into the originals. In my opinion it just shines the light on the fact the original texts (or at least the oldest texts we have access to) are not error free and do not harmonize.

What is it that causes people to worship textual material like this and have the need for it to be error free? Could it be that the only avenue to their god is via this text?

If I wanted to find the truth about a god, it seems kinda silly to me to base my ideas upon some old writings rather than observing the world around me in the here and now. Especially when some of these old writings fail to comport with reality as we now understand it.

The more I learn about the Bible and what various groups have done with it to try and 'fix' it the less I respect these groups views. They are obviously starting with some theology, and then trying to make it look like these old writings support their ideas - after they fix up the text of course.

[TRANSPONDER]

At the same time, Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses also share the doctrine that the Bible is inerrant.

I find it ironic that some of these groups retranslate the texts to try and make them look inerrant. They are just putting their own errors into the originals. In my opinion it just shines the light on the fact the original texts (or at least the oldest texts we have access to) are not error free and do not harmonize.

What is it that causes people to worship textual material like this and have the need for it to be error free? Could it be that the only avenue to their god is via this text?

If I wanted to find the truth about a god, it seems kinda silly to me to base my ideas upon some old writings rather than observing the world around me in the here and now. Especially when some of these old writings fail to comport with reality as we now understand it.

The more I learn about the Bible and what various groups have done with it to try and 'fix' it the less I respect these groups views. They are obviously starting with some theology, and then trying to make it look like these old writings support their ideas - after they fix up the text of course.

A couple of good points. I have experienced a bit of textual fiddling to try to get over discrepancies. One was a translation of 'door' in Hebrew to get over a problem in Ezekiel's description of the Temple (he had to go translation - shopping for that one) and of course 'pro' as meaning 'before' rather than 'when' in order to try to shift the governorship of Quirinus to Herod's time.

More usually it is done in English like 'circle' of the earth when the Hebrew implies a flat, scribed, circle, not a globe. But this is par for the course, saying that This means something else. Like obviously Jesus returning before the generation dying has to be made to mean something else. Excuses, evasions and misrepresentations, as well of course as just making stuff up which isn't even in the Bible just to make it work.

As you say, why the reverence for the written word? It is remarkable how we tend to accept what it presented by Authority, not only in print but on the screen, though we do tend to pick our Authorities But closer to home, I have been astonished at how the Bible has to be validated at the expense of the God. For example, the Black sea (local) flood. This is done (of course) to fiddle science to support the Bible (which, like all fads and cults, like UFOs and ancient technology, they long for science endorsement while sneering at science when it doesn't do it) and they never seem to get that if the Biblical flood was really the Black sea flood (it clearly wasn't) then even if the Bible record is true, it totally scuppers God's purpose in the flood. The event denies the Bible - claim.

Like a colleague at work who tried to make walking on water credible by suggesting it was wading through the shallows, but if it was (it wasn't) it means no miracle. And a teacher at school who tried to claim that mud had curative powers (but still wouldn't do an instant cure). This man was a crummy apologist, not a teacher.

But I don't think it's sacrificing the religion to the book - clearly it isn't. Just like the Talpiot tomb (which if containing Jesus' bones, debunks the resurrection) they leap on anything that looks like it is 'evidence' without thinking about it. At All.

I won't get into the subsequent wriggling and evasion, never mind going on the attack if we point out these Faiths, nor even the protection of Faith which is actually protecting their own feelings of Rightness, but rather suggest that the Belief being held sacred the scripture itself becomes sacred and must be protected, even at the expense of the religion.

[Difflugia]

What is it that causes people to worship textual material like this and have the need for it to be error free? Could it be that the only avenue to their god is via this text?

I don't think they want an avenue to God, but an avenue to assurance. Even though they're claiming that God is responsible for the text, they're not asking the text what it says.

The more I learn about the Bible and what various groups have done with it to try and 'fix' it the less I respect these groups views. They are obviously starting with some theology, and then trying to make it look like these old writings support their ideas - after they fix up the text of course.

I've said this before, but a big part of the evolution for me was the realization that authors want to be understood. If one has to squint at the text to justify what it might mean, it's probably not what the author intended for the reader.

More usually it is done in English like 'circle' of the earth when the Hebrew implies a flat, scribed, circle, not a globe. But this is par for the course, saying that This means something else. Like obviously Jesus returning before the generation dying has to be made to mean something else. Excuses, evasions and misrepresentations, as well of course as just making stuff up which isn't even in the Bible just to make it work.

There's an awful lot of rehabilitating the text in various ways both before and after translation. I've yet to find a translation that doesn't have some theologically motivated renditions that affect the text. The closest is the NRSV, but even there, too much of the translation is subordinate to modern liturgical concerns. Gender neutrality to suit a more modern Christianity or academic rigor? Pick a lane, please.

At the end of the day, the primary goal of Bible translators is to sell Bibles and the majority of people buying them want one that reassures them rather than challenging them, even if the latter more honestly represents the text as it is.