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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Why is the teaching of JWs and Adventists the gold standard and verses dismantling their theology a “discrepancy” in scripture? Why not question the theology instead of the Bible?

One apologetic that may pop up is 'That isn't my bel;ief'. I ran up against it talking about Judgement and eternal life in heaven and got 'We don't believe in heaven for people, but eternal life on earth for the Righteous'.

So in a sense we have to latch on the apologetics of this or that discrepant sect and debate on that. Mind, it is mainstream protestant doctrines that we have in mind as a basic when we debate because that's what we generally get in the US.

OK, so I can see the validity of accepting the beliefs of the JWs, etc (called a false "cult" by mainstream christianity) as they know it to be and working from there for the sake of discussion. It is a point for christians that their position is so deviant from scripture that one can see that quite easily, but that is not a part of the discussion. You make a valid point.

Agreed. This divergence from topic came up. his often happens. It is ok as a valid side -point is often made. I like it that 'on topic' is more lenient here than it is (or was) on my other forum. People could be banned for persistently straying off topic.

[Difflugia]

Why is the teaching of JWs and Adventists the gold standard and verses dismantling their theology a “discrepancy” in scripture?

The discrepancy exists for anyone that includes inerrancy in their theology. The author of Ecclesiastes writes as though there's no life after death. The author of 1 Samuel writes as though there is. If biblical authors cannot theologically disagree, there is a conflict.

Why not question the theology instead of the Bible?

I am absolutely questioning the theology. The SDA and Witness theologies both claim that the spirit contacted by the necromancer of Endor isn't Samuel, even though the Bible says it is. Those official theologies also both claim that the Bible is inerrant. Neither of those is a problem for or with the Bible. The Bible is what it is. I have no problem with the authors of Ecclesiastes and the Deuteronomistic history disagreeing with each other on this or any other matter.

My question is what you or anyone else think inerrancy means and how that limits your interpretation of the text. If you subscribe to the notion of inerrancy, how much latitude do you feel when changing the plain meaning of a passage to harmonize with another? When the SDA/Witness apologists change the meaning of 1 Samuel 28, do you feel that fits with your own definition of inerrancy? Why or why not?

[TRANSPONDER]

Rather like close encounters and Bible apologetics, the meaning of inerrancy seems to be of Three Kinds.

(1) Right and correct and no contradictions *the idea of a micromanaged Bible that has no errors is just more than even the most Diehard inerrantist would want to maintain). Human edits may have made mistakes, but the basic book is correct, true, and has no really serious contradictions.

(2) It is the work of men and has all their flaws (though there is a huge range of apologetics from science denial and rewriting the Bible to make it Work to opting for metaphorically true if not factually true) but it tells about the true God and was inspired to do that.

(3) It does not claim to be directed by God so as to have His guarantee that it is true (even where wrong) but it does relate the facts as much as any other work of history, and essentially what it says that really matters (Jesus rose from the dead) we can take as reliable.

Of course, from my point of view, the Bible and it's apologetics fails on all three levels.

[Mae von H]

Why is the teaching of JWs and Adventists the gold standard and verses dismantling their theology a “discrepancy” in scripture?

The discrepancy exists for anyone that includes inerrancy in their theology. The author of Ecclesiastes writes as though there's no life after death. The author of 1 Samuel writes as though there is. If biblical authors cannot theologically disagree, there is a conflict.

With a half way descent education in the kinds of literature the books of the Bible are, this is easily explained. Ecclesiastes was written by a deeply depressed weary of life man. Those who like his “death is the end” verses probably don’t like his “everything you do is useless” mentality. His view is not reflected in anything anyone else ever wrote because the others weren’t despondent. If a person has no education in the various purposes of the books, but think all verses are the same, it appears incongruent.

Why not question the theology instead of the Bible?

I am absolutely questioning the theology. The SDA and Witness theologies both claim that the spirit contacted by the necromancer of Endor isn't Samuel, even though the Bible says it is. Those official theologies also both claim that the Bible is inerrant. Neither of those is a problem for or with the Bible. The Bible is what it is. I have no problem with the authors of Ecclesiastes and the Deuteronomistic history disagreeing with each other on this or any other matter.

They will have to answer that. Their view isn’t mine. I don’t have that struggle.

My question is what you or anyone else think inerrancy means and how that limits your interpretation of the text. If you subscribe to the notion of inerrancy, how much latitude do you feel when changing the plain meaning of a passage to harmonize with another? When the SDA/Witness apologists change the meaning of 1 Samuel 28, do you feel that fits with your own definition of inerrancy? Why or why not?

I don’t think it’s inerrant. Pretty easily dealt with I think.

[Difflugia]

I don’t think it’s inerrant. Pretty easily dealt with I think.

Then you and I agree on this one point. If that's the case, I'm not sure what you were trying to argue with me about.

[Mae von H]

I don’t think it’s inerrant. Pretty easily dealt with I think.

Then you and I agree on this one point. If that's the case, I'm not sure what you were trying to argue with me about.

I didn’t come to argue. I just saw the illogic of assuming the Bible is at fault when JW theology doesn’t match it. JW theology doesn’t fit but no one questions the theology. Instead only the Book being off is considered.

[Difflugia]

I just saw the illogic of assuming the Bible is at fault when JW theology doesn’t match it. JW theology doesn’t fit but no one questions the theology. Instead only the Book being off is considered.

That's exactly what I said, though. The problem is a theology of inerrancy that requires harmonizing contradictions rather than just accepting the Bible as it is, contradictions and all. The question I asked is about how far those harmonizations can go before it's nonsensical to claim inerrancy.

[Mae von H]

I just saw the illogic of assuming the Bible is at fault when JW theology doesn’t match it. JW theology doesn’t fit but no one questions the theology. Instead only the Book being off is considered.

That's exactly what I said, though. The problem is a theology of inerrancy that requires harmonizing contradictions rather than just accepting the Bible as it is, contradictions and all. The question I asked is about how far those harmonizations can go before it's nonsensical to claim inerrancy.

But this misses the point that the theology doesn’t match the book. The example was:

JW theology teaches spirits remain in the grave. Samuel appeared to Saul. Solution? JW theology is wrong. The spirit departs the body at death and goes elsewhere. So no contradictory verses, just wrong JW theology.

[Difflugia]

But this misses the point that the theology doesn’t match the book. The example was:

JW theology teaches spirits remain in the grave. Samuel appeared to Saul. Solution? JW theology is wrong. The spirit departs the body at death and goes elsewhere. So no contradictory verses, just wrong JW theology.

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. Ecclesiastes 9:5 is the proof text they use ("For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."), but the whole book very obviously makes the point that neither people nor animals have any sort of afterlife. That contradicts the story of the necromancer of Endor summoning the spirit of Samuel from somewhere to talk to Saul.

You said that you're not bothered by the contradiction because you don't believe the Bible's inerrant. My understanding of what you said is that Ecclesiastes was written by someone that's depressed and got wrong what happens after death. You've chosen 1 Samuel as having a plausible and perhaps historical account of a dead spirit. That contradicts Ecclesiastes, but it doesn't matter if the Bible isn't inerrant and its authors are allowed to contradict each other. 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.

Orthodox Christians that profess inerrancy must do something similar. The contradiction doesn't just go away if one ignores it. 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.

[Mae von H]

But this misses the point that the theology doesn’t match the book. The example was:

JW theology teaches spirits remain in the grave. Samuel appeared to Saul. Solution? JW theology is wrong. The spirit departs the body at death and goes elsewhere. So no contradictory verses, just wrong JW theology.

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 and no one who quotes this view of his also quotes his view of the futility of life. He recommends “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.” Do they accept that view of his as well? Cherry picking.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 is the proof text they use ("For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."), but the whole book very obviously makes the point that neither people nor animals have any sort of afterlife.

He thought all of life useless. Not a single Bible author thought this. But none of them were depressed to the point of suicide. Why does anyone credit that author with knowing something?

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.

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. But understanding takes some education.

My understanding of what you said is that Ecclesiastes was written by someone that's depressed and got wrong what happens after death.

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

You've chosen 1 Samuel as having a plausible and perhaps historical account of a dead spirit. 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.

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.

Orthodox Christians that profess inerrancy must do something similar. The contradiction doesn't just go away if one ignores it.

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

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.