How important is "inerrancy" even?

[gadfly]

I see a lot of discussions here concentrating on the doctrine of inerrancy, to the extent that if the bible can be shown to contain one contradiction (e.g. Proverbs tells us both to answer a fool according to his folly AND to NOT answer a fool according to his folly) then it logically follows that every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected. This "all or none" position is maintained on both sides of the debate, so that the game boils down to skeptics pointing out some apparent contradiction and inerrantists endeavoring to demonstrate how it is not actually a contradiction.

Now the briefest survey of the history of biblical hermeneutics will shows how novel this assumption is. The doctrine of inerrancy was raised up in the 19th c. and came to maturity in the 20th century; the doctrine was mainly an American phenomenon; and it was a reaction against the suggestion that we were descended from apes (apparently inerrantists are comfortable coming from dirt. but apes? How degrading!).

We see then how provincial this doctrine is. The doctrine plays almost no role in British Christianity today. It was apparently not required for 2,000 years of church history, because, as Origen points out, the discrepancies are hardly weighty. Catholicism's doctrine of scripture is closer to Origin's position than to American Evangelical's. It holds that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation"--that is very different from the late doctrine of inerrancy held by American evangelicals.

Q4D: So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity, why are debates here so focused on it? Is it possible to debate the ultimate truths of Christianity without reference to inerrancy?

[Tcg]

I see a lot of discussions here concentrating on the doctrine of inerrancy, to the extent that if the bible can be shown to contain one contradiction (e.g. Proverbs tells us both to answer a fool according to his folly AND to NOT answer a fool according to his folly) then it logically follows that every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected.

Really, I can't find any. Please point us to these "lot of discussions" that you see that do what you claim.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

For one thing, there has been a very ling discussion on the subject of Inerrancy, and i recall another thread on what inerancy even meant.

The discussion in twofold - one is whether it means Biblical perfection (which it isn't) or Biblical reliability, which is the actual debate; does it stack up as reliable history.

The other debate being the contradictions that undermine it as reliable history. And, aside from Blatant denial, contradictions there are, and the debate is really about trying to excuse or explain them, or just dismiss them as understandable error.

Which, when you think of it, disposes of inerancy. Unless God doesn't care how much of a mess His Book is. But is the story broadly factual? That is perhaps the real debate.

Well, friends, some have doubted all or any of it, and it is Possible to have made the whole thing up, adapting previous stories of messiahs and resurrected gods. I think the evidence is against it. I don't think Paul is invented, nor the disciples invented nor Jesus actually invented. Though an invented Joshua - figure could be invented, but even then, the original Joshua, real or invented, was Jewish; and either way, evidence is that the Greek Christians adapted the story, real or invented, to turn the insurrectionist Joshua into the Christian Jesus. Excuse the Romans and make them the Faithful, and blame the Jews and make them the baddies.

Yes, Friends, that is the extent of Inerrancy - whether the broadly Christian view is more or less true, (never mind the nativities and resurrection which is demonstrably invented) or whether it was more or less made up.

Which, when you get down to it, is pretty much the same thing. And yet we still get the question about 'Inerrancy' - whatever that even means, when - like the nativities - it ought not even to be worth discussing.

[POI]

"How important is inerrancy?"

Well, IF the Bible is 'God breathed', it becomes objectively important to be inerrant.

Is the Bible given by God? In other words, are the ~40 mostly anonymous authors just mere ghost writers for an inerrant God-given message?

*******************

Alternatively, if the Bible is NOT inerrant, then many specific follow-up questions then ensue... like...

Was the expressed "flood" to be taken literally (yes or no)? This question alone drives a pretty large wedge between Christian sects alone.

Was the expressed 'Exodus' to be taken literally (yes or no)? This question alone drives a pretty large wedge between Christian sects alone.

For the one opting to not take the book literally, seems they can completely have their cake and eat it too. Meaning, when the Bible gets something right, the Christian can say, 'see, I told you.' When the expressed event did not happen in reality, the Christian has the liberty to say things like, 'oh, that was just a this-or-that story, to maybe convey this-or-that."

*****************************

In conclusion, for the literalist, the believer will revere any/all 'finding(s)' which support the Biblical claim and reject the ones which do not. The other side will pick and choose, to taste, maybe because, (as Difflugia already stated), they are embarrassed by some of the claims they know are false in reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Innerrancy is as vague as a lot of other terms. Strictly it means God's word, with no kind of error. This is odd, as it means the contradictions are not to be explained but denied. 'There are none there'

But the other kind, which I'd call Bible veracity says that it is reliable, (aside any "Inspiration" from God) and contradictions can either be excused or explained. "Mark, Matthew and John or their informants somehow didn't hear the penitent thief, but thought both of the robbers cursed Jesus out". Yeah.

So we get the cafeteria - Christianity which is frankly flawed. Let's say, but is heading in the right direction: scrapping more and more Bibletext they can no longer tell themselves can be explained or explained away, but swallow which scraps they can still stomach.