Inerrant or Not?

[POI]

I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. It doesn't claim to be. I'm not a fundamentalist, and fundamentalism is a fairly recent faction in Christendom. They can defend their own position.

Seems this would be a settled topic among believers by now. And yet, for as many Christians as I engage, some claim inerrancy, while some do not. Can we settle this topic once and for all?

For debate: Is the Bible inerrant or not? And how exactly do we know?

To add more concise substance, I'm not a believer. The question is posed to ask if the writers of the Bible intended for their given writings to be taken literally and accurately? Can we know?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Verily in post #30]

I never defined inerrancy as without errors in manuscripts.

in·er·rant
[inˈerənt]
adjective
incapable of being wrong:

Do you see the definition above? This is what inerrancy means, and this is what those who argue for inerrancy of the Bible mean. Therefore, if you do not hold to the idea that the Bible is "incapable of being wrong" then you need to stop using the word inerrant to describe the position you hold, because inerrant means, "incapable of being wrong". Again, if your position is that the Bible accurately conveys God's message to humanity, then we have no argument. However, if this is the position you hold, then you are not at all arguing for the inerrancy of the Bible.

This is exactly what I have been arguing all along. In other words, I am arguing that we can know God's message for humanity, without insisting that the Bible is without any sort of error.

I defined my understanding of inerrancy as meaning the Bible can be explicitly trusted.

The problem is you cannot have your own personal definition of inerrancy. Because you see, I can agree that the Bible can be trusted to give us facts, and evidence that we can know. What I cannot agree with is the idea that the Bible is incapable of any sort of error. The point is, if you are not arguing that the Bible is incapable of any sort of error, then you are not arguing for inerrancy. Rather, you seem to be making the same argument that I am making in that the Bible accurately conveys God's message to humanity without insisting that the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error. It is really that simple. Either you are arguing that the Bible we now have is without any sort of error, or you are simply acknowledging the idea that the Bible conveys accurate information which can be trusted, without insisting the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error.

Augustine used the word inerrant sixteen centuries ago, and Christians have multiply interpretations of that word, not one. Instead of constantly quipping "GOOD GRIEF", at me and talking at your definition of inerrancy, why not talk to me about mine?

Okay, I will talk to you about yours. It seems to me that you and I agree that the idea that the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error cannot be defended. The only difference seems to be that I do not use the word inerrancy to describe my position because I understand that the definition of inerrancy means, without error. The question is, why do you continue to use the word inerrancy to describe the position you hold, when you do not adhere to the idea that the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error? Again, you know, I know, and everyone else knows, that inerrancy is the belief that it is impossible for the Bible to contain any sort of error. You do not seem willing to defend this position, so then, why do you insist upon using the word inerrancy to describe the position you hold?

He that humbles himself will be exalted, but he who exalts himself will be abased.

Are you asking me to humble myself and take the position of inerrancy, when this does not seem to be the position you adhere to?

[Verily]

[Replying to Verily in post #30]

I never defined inerrancy as without errors in manuscripts.

in·er·rant
[inˈerənt]
adjective
incapable of being wrong:

Do you see the definition above? This is what inerrancy means, and this is what those who argue for inerrancy of the Bible mean. Therefore, if you do not hold to the idea that the Bible is "incapable of being wrong" then you need to stop using the word inerrant to describe the position you hold, because inerrant means, "incapable of being wrong". Again, if your position is that the Bible accurately conveys God's message to humanity, then we have no argument. However, if this is the position you hold, then you are not at all arguing for the inerrancy of the Bible.

This is exactly what I have been arguing all along. In other words, I am arguing that we can know God's message for humanity, without insisting that the Bible is without any sort of error.

I defined my understanding of inerrancy as meaning the Bible can be explicitly trusted.

The problem is you cannot have your own personal definition of inerrancy. Because you see, I can agree that the Bible can be trusted to give us facts, and evidence that we can know. What I cannot agree with is the idea that the Bible is incapable of any sort of error. The point is, if you are not arguing that the Bible is incapable of any sort of error, then you are not arguing for inerrancy. Rather, you seem to be making the same argument that I am making in that the Bible accurately conveys God's message to humanity without insisting that the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error. It is really that simple. Either you are arguing that the Bible we now have is without any sort of error, or you are simply acknowledging the idea that the Bible conveys accurate information which can be trusted, without insisting the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error.

Augustine used the word inerrant sixteen centuries ago, and Christians have multiply interpretations of that word, not one. Instead of constantly quipping "GOOD GRIEF", at me and talking at your definition of inerrancy, why not talk to me about mine?

Okay, I will talk to you about yours. It seems to me that you and I agree that the idea that the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error cannot be defended. The only difference seems to be that I do not use the word inerrancy to describe my position because I understand that the definition of inerrancy means, without error. The question is, why do you continue to use the word inerrancy to describe the position you hold, when you do not adhere to the idea that the whole of the Bible is without any sort of error? Again, you know, I know, and everyone else knows, that inerrancy is the belief that it is impossible for the Bible to contain any sort of error. You do not seem willing to defend this position, so then, why do you insist upon using the word inerrancy to describe the position you hold?

He that humbles himself will be exalted, but he who exalts himself will be abased.

Are you asking me to humble myself and take the position of inerrancy, when this does not seem to be the position you adhere to?

There's multiple views of inerrancy, not just one. I don't see any point continuing our discussion. If you're curious about the different views the Church has had historically, about inerrancy, you can google it. I've read about a dozen of your interactions with other people and noticed you treated them the same as me. You disregard people's views and argue with yourself. So I don't take it personally. Enjoy arguing with yourself, but I'll pass.

[POI]

I'm not sure about what you call "minimal facts".

I gave you a pretty clear description in my last response, in post 20. Does this description fit for you, more lor less?

What I do know, and I am sure you know as well, is when we are at odds with each other, it is a good idea to sit down and determine what we can agree upon.

I would agree. But I've exchanged with countless Christians, and there is very little agreement. This tells me the Bible is not very clear. I blame the author(s).

I hope we can agree that the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that we have enough evidence contained in the NT to know the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. Whether you would like to admit it or not, that is some pretty stout evidence,

"Stout evidence" of what? That some ancients believed stuff?

The next thing for one to do is to sit down in order to determine what all would have to be involved for this to be the case. If one were to do such a thing, they will discover that it is extremely difficult to come up with any sort of answers which will explain all we can know. Of course, I am not suggesting that we simply revert to the idea that since this is the case then we should believe the resurrection. What I am saying is, as far as I know, no one has ever come up with a satisfactory answer in order to explain all we can know. Moreover, the explanations which have been put forth would include the extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary).

The only 'extraordinary' would be to assume that a rotting corpse rose again and went on a resurrection tour. All other deemed conclusions would be far less 'extraordinary.'

With this being the case, I am not insisting that you, nor anyone else should believe the resurrection took place. What I am insisting is that you, nor anyone else can insist there are no reasons to believe the claims.

Depends on what you define as 'reason(s)'? What is/are these reason(s) --- faith, indoctrination, credulity, other?

It's pretty simple. I am not insisting that those who doubt, or do not believe do not have reasons for the doubt, or unbelief. but there certainly seem to be those who are opposed who seem to want to insist that the position they hold is the only position with reason on its side.

To instead conclude that a rotting corpse actually rose again, is instead the most far-fetched, least likely, and most improbable, conclusion. Couple this with the conclusion that it would be fairly safe to say the Gospels are not trustworthy, and you what we have, which commands and demands "faith", even expressed from the book itself.

I will go on to point out that, many of these very same folks who are so certain that reason is now on their side, freely admit to being convinced Christians at one time, who more than likely held the same attitude when they were a convinced Christian. In other words, as a convinced Christian, they convinced themselves that the position they held was the only reasonable position. Strange how that works, isn't it? I mean, how does one go from being so confident with the position they once held, to being just as convinced now that they have changed the mind?

No different than when I once wholeheartedly believed in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the boogie man, etc etc etc.... It is just that it is harder to shake other beliefs, especially when intelligent folks around you still attest to its veracity. Sometimes, it is not until one investigates the claims for themselves, do they then realize faith is very much required to retain such a claim.

[otseng]

I never defined inerrancy as without errors in manuscripts. I defined my understanding of inerrancy as meaning the Bible can be explicitly trusted, see post 23. Augustine used the word inerrant sixteen centuries ago, and Christians have multiple interpretations of that word, not one.

And that's another problem with the doctrine of inerrancy; there isn't a consensus view of what it actually means. One can pretty much make up any definition one wants. And another reason why it's meaningless to even use the term.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #33]

I would agree. But I've exchanged with countless Christians, and there is very little agreement. This tells me the Bible is not very clear. I blame the author(s).

My friend let's stay focused. We agree that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the earliest followers of Jesus truly believed they had encountered the risen Jesus. It is not that they believed a tale concerning someone who rose from the dead, but rather they believed, were convinced, they had personally witnessed with their own eyes Jesus alive after death. Now, how in the world do these scholars tell us this is something we can know? Well, that would be from the material contained in the NT. So then, although you seem to want to insist the material is not clear, it is clear enough for the scholars to tell us we can know from this material, that the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) truly believed they had witnessed the event. This then, is "stout" evidence that these folks were not making the tale up, and it is also stout evidence that the tale was not embellished over the years. In other words, the idea that all these folks invented the story does not explain what we can know, along with the fact that the story was embellished over the years cannot be the answer because it goes against what we can know.

It's pretty simple. Either you are going to have to agree this is something we can know, or you will have to insist this is not something we can know in the face of the overwhelming evidence. What this does is eliminate some of the explanations in order to explain what all we can know concerning the events surrounding the resurrection. I can go on to tell you that insisting that the resurrection is the least likely conclusion is not going to answer the question in that no one is going to argue with this. However, going with what you believe to be the least likely does not always get one to the truth of the matter.

The point is, we have eliminated the idea that these folks were involved in the theft of the body, and we have eliminated the idea that they made the story up. Now, I understand that you like to make the argument that a resurrection is the least likely explanation, but you will have to attempt to give us some sort of alternative explanation in order to determine exactly how likely such a scenario would be. I am convinced if you were to take on such an endeavor you will discover that any scenario you come up with will not be very likely at all. So then, all you are doing is to exchange one unlikely tale for another, and it does not matter which scenario you believe to be the least likely. It is like I have been saying all along. You seem to want to eliminate the extraordinary from the explanation, but you fail to give us a scenario which would explain all the facts and evidence we can know which would eliminate the extraordinary and it does not matter which you believe to be the least extraordinary because we are still left with the extraordinary.

The only 'extraordinary' would be to assume that a rotting corpse rose again and went on a resurrection tour. All other deemed conclusions would be far less 'extraordinary.'

This is an example of what I am talking about. Although we have eliminated the idea these folks were involved in the theft of the body, it would be quite an extraordinary feat for these folks to be involved in such an event because of what all would have to be entailed, and we do not have the time or space to go through what all would have to be entailed. This is one of the reason this scenario is eliminated because this sort of scenario would defy the odds. So then, we are off to the next scenario and we will soon come to realize that any other scenario you bring to the table would go against the odds, and we are left with you going with the one you believe to be the least extraordinary.

The thing is, I really do not mind at all as to how you come to your conclusions and am fine with whatever conclusion you come to. The problem comes in when we have those who seem to want to insist there is no reason involved with the position I hold, when they cannot come up with an explanation of the facts and evidence we can know which would be very likely at all, and then seem to want to insist that I have to eliminate what they deem to be the most unlikely. I am sorry but that math just doesn't add.

So then, we can both look at the facts and evidence we can know surrounding the resurrection and agree to disagree, without insisting that reason is only on one side of the equation, or you can continue to insist that reason is only on your side, when you cannot in the least demonstrate this to be the case.

To instead conclude that a rotting corpse actually rose again, is instead the most far-fetched, least likely, and most improbable, conclusion.

You cannot say this with certainty without going through and eliminating every scenario. As an example, the idea of the theft of the body is not very likely at all, and it does not matter if you believe it to be more likely than another scenario. The thing is, with all the facts and evidence we can know, we can go ahead an eliminate this idea all together. Again, this means we are off to the next, and in the end, you will discover that any other scenario is not going to be likely in the least. At this point, you seem to want to insist, that we go with any scenario at all, no matter how unlikely it would be, as long as this scenario does not include a resurrection.

I mean, we have events which have occurred, and you have no explanation of these events which would be likely in the least, and you seem to want to insist that we all go with any explanation at all no matter how unlikely it would be, and then want to seem to insist that reasoning is on your side.

Couple this with the conclusion that it would be fairly safe to say the Gospels are not trustworthy

You continue to say this, however the Gospels are trustworthy enough to convince most all scholars that the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death. My friend, that is all we need. It does not matter if we could demonstrate everything else in the Gospels to be untrustworthy because we can know with certainty that these folks did not make this up in their mind. The question is what best explains this fact we can know.

No different than when I once wholeheartedly believed in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the boogie man, etc etc etc....

You do yourself no favors by making such comparisons. You know, I know, and everyone else knows there is no evidence at all concerning the characters above, but we all know we have serious evidence surrounding the resurrection, and when you attempt to make such comparisons, it demonstrates one who is not serious. I mean, the resurrection has been seriously debated for thousands of years because of the facts and evidence surrounding the claims, and you want to make silly comparisons.

It is just that it is harder to shake other beliefs, especially when intelligent folks around you still attest to its veracity.

My friend, there are extremely intelligent folk on both sides of the equation. As I said, the debate concerning the events of the resurrection have been raging for thousands of years. How one can know this and continue to be so convinced that the answers are all so simple and go on to convince themselves that reason is only on their side is beyond my ability to understand. So then, we can agree to disagree and agree that we have both used reason to come to the conclusion we have, or you can continue to insist that all these extremely intelligent folk who hold to a different opinion than you could not possibly be using reason.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #35]

Before I respond here, please be advised you completely skipped my first question (i.e.):

I gave you a pretty clear description in my last response, in post 20. Does this description fit for you, more lor less?

If you do look to fall somewhere within this category, then the topic has been satisfied. I will then redirect all of what you repeatedly say, over and over again, and place it in the appropriate thread for continued examination...

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I addressed this totally and completely by saying,

I'm not sure about what you call "minimal facts".

I went on to say,

What I do know, and I am sure you know as well, is when we are at odds with each other, it is a good idea to sit down and determine what we can agree upon.

If what you call "minimal facts" concerns finding out what we can agree upon then I would agree, but this is as far as I am willing to go since I am not familiar with what it is you are referring to. As far as your redirecting, you can redirect all you would like but I am not going from one thread to another.

[POI]

While I await your response to my first question, I will start to pick at the beginning of your response.....

We agree that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the earliest followers of Jesus truly believed they had encountered the risen Jesus. It is not that they believed a tale concerning someone who rose from the dead, but rather they believed, were convinced, they had personally witnessed with their own eyes Jesus alive after death. Now, how in the world do these scholars tell us this is something we can know? Well, that would be from the material contained in the NT. So then, although you seem to want to insist the material is not clear, it is clear enough for the scholars to tell us we can know from this material, that the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) truly believed they had witnessed the event. This then, is "stout" evidence that these folks were not making the tale up, and it is also stout evidence that the tale was not embellished over the years. In other words, the idea that all these folks invented the story does not explain what we can know, along with the fact that the story was embellished over the years cannot be the answer because it goes against what we can know.

Well, since you place a very high importance on scholarly agreement, then you must also reconcile the following. The majority of New Testament scholars also agree that the Gospels do not contain direct eyewitness accounts, but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.

As I've alluded to prior, we are talking about all of the Bible, and not only the Gospel narrative of a claimed risen Jesus account. Never-the-less, we know the Gospels are not trustworthy regardless. I have repeatedly told you why in other thread(s). Which means you are basing your rationale upon "a house built on sand", as something Jesus may have been expressed to say from time to time.

The point is, we have eliminated the idea that these folks were involved in the theft of the body, and we have eliminated the idea that they made the story up.

As I've told another, it makes little sense that Jesus was crucified, but then, buried respectably. I explained near the top of post 13 here -->(viewtopic.php?t=42302&start=10). I've also repeatedly demonstrated that the Gospels are not trustworthy. Explained here (viewtopic.php?t=41934).

Now, I understand that you like to make the argument that a resurrection is the least likely explanation, but you will have to attempt to give us some sort of alternative explanation in order to determine exactly how likely such a scenario would be.

I already have, over and over and over... To come to the conclusions, you state skeptics would have to alternatively propose, you would first have to take what the Gospels say at full face value. I do not and have explained why. I think the Gospels accounts are a combination of 'fact', legend/lore, political motivation, other.

I might respond to the rest later, but I have to work now. Peace...

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #37]

The thread asks about the entire Bible, and not just the Gospel narrative about a supposed resurrection. You seem to always want to hyper-focus on this claim alone. This is fine. I'm basically trying to get your position, so I know where not to go with (you)...

[Difflugia]

We agree that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the earliest followers of Jesus truly believed they had encountered the risen Jesus. It is not that they believed a tale concerning someone who rose from the dead, but rather they believed, were convinced, they had personally witnessed with their own eyes Jesus alive after death.

You keep needing this explained to you, but this is a non sequitur based on independent claims. The majority of scholars (according to Gary Habermas) say that the earliest followers of Jesus encountered the risen Jesus in some way. This does not mean that the followers necessarily interacted with the risen Jesus in a way that involved a physical Jesus and physical senses.