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?

[historia]

As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is what it is and Christianity's wrong about it.

I don't know if we can meaningfully talk about "Christianity" having a single view of the Bible.

For example, if I grab both of the single-volume biblical commentaries sitting in the bookcase next to me -- one Roman Catholic, the other broadly Protestant -- and turn to the commentary on the book of Jonah, both unhesitatingly say it is a work of fiction. I count this very much a part of "Christianity," yet I don't think you'd say they are "wrong" on this score.

Take metaphor or symbolism. While it is true that 'swords into ploughshares is a poetic metaphor, Jonah and the whale is not. If that is claimed as 'metaphorically true', that means 'not true at all'.

I disagree. Jonah specifically is poetic metaphor. It's a late and fictional composition about a prophet that's otherwise barely mentioned. Jonah and Boaz are the same kind of character, plucked from an earlier composition and given a backstory. Jonah is a longer version of the parable of the good Samaritan that is just as true in just the same way. Those that claim that it's inerrant history are wrong, but that doesn't change what Jonah is.

If someone earnestly believes that Tom Sawyer is inerrant history, explaining why it's fiction is not an "attack" on Tom Sawyer and it's not proof that it's "wrong." It does, however, make clear why the Twain inerrantists are wrong.

I very much agree with this, and think the above exchange gives us a bridge back to answering the question posed for debate in the OP.

I think the reason why some discussions here tend to focus on inerrancy is because both Fundamentalists and many atheist critics of Christianity share the same presuppositions regarding the Bible. They are both very much heirs of the Enlightenment, which placed supreme value on an historical and (especially) scientific understanding of the world. For Fundamentalists, the Bible must make accurate historical and scientific claims because those are the kinds of propositional statements that have the highest value.

To that end, I suspect many Fundamentalists would actually agree with TRANSPONDER's assertion that the story of Jonah being "metaphorically true" would render it "not true at all," and therefore "hardly worth serious consideration." Both share the assumption that what really matters here is if the story is an accurate historical account or not. They just disagree as to which it is, and so can proceed to hashing that out in debate.

Christians and atheists who don't share that presupposition -- who are happy to acknowledge that the story of Jonah, among others in the Bible, is not an historical account, and that's not a problem for the Bible -- don't have the same motivation to debate. And so the discussions here tend to focus more on the Protestant Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

[Difflugia]

As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is what it is and Christianity's wrong about it.

I don't know if we can meaningfully talk about "Christianity" having a single view of the Bible.

For example, if I grab both of the single-volume biblical commentaries sitting in the bookcase next to me -- one Roman Catholic, the other broadly Protestant -- and turn to the commentary on the book of Jonah, both unhesitatingly say it is a work of fiction. I count this very much a part of "Christianity," yet I don't think you'd say they are "wrong" on this score.

That's totally fair. I was painting with a much broader brush than I know I should, particularly since that was kind of my point in the first place.

[TRANSPONDER]

As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is what it is and Christianity's wrong about it.

I don't know if we can meaningfully talk about "Christianity" having a single view of the Bible.

For example, if I grab both of the single-volume biblical commentaries sitting in the bookcase next to me -- one Roman Catholic, the other broadly Protestant -- and turn to the commentary on the book of Jonah, both unhesitatingly say it is a work of fiction. I count this very much a part of "Christianity," yet I don't think you'd say they are "wrong" on this score.

Take metaphor or symbolism. While it is true that 'swords into ploughshares is a poetic metaphor, Jonah and the whale is not. If that is claimed as 'metaphorically true', that means 'not true at all'.

I disagree. Jonah specifically is poetic metaphor. It's a late and fictional composition about a prophet that's otherwise barely mentioned. Jonah and Boaz are the same kind of character, plucked from an earlier composition and given a backstory. Jonah is a longer version of the parable of the good Samaritan that is just as true in just the same way. Those that claim that it's inerrant history are wrong, but that doesn't change what Jonah is.

If someone earnestly believes that Tom Sawyer is inerrant history, explaining why it's fiction is not an "attack" on Tom Sawyer and it's not proof that it's "wrong." It does, however, make clear why the Twain inerrantists are wrong.

I very much agree with this, and think the above exchange gives us a bridge back to answering the question posed for debate in the OP.

I think the reason why some discussions here tend to focus on inerrancy is because both Fundamentalists and many atheist critics of Christianity share the same presuppositions regarding the Bible. They are both very much heirs of the Enlightenment, which placed supreme value on an historical and (especially) scientific understanding of the world. For Fundamentalists, the Bible must make accurate historical and scientific claims because those are the kinds of propositional statements that have the highest value.

To that end, I suspect many Fundamentalists would actually agree with TRANSPONDER's assertion that the story of Jonah being "metaphorically true" would render it "not true at all," and therefore "hardly worth serious consideration." Both share the assumption that what really matters here is if the story is an accurate historical account or not. They just disagree as to which it is, and so can proceed to hashing that out in debate.

Christians and atheists who don't share that presupposition -- who are happy to acknowledge that the story of Jonah, among others in the Bible, is not an historical account, and that's not a problem for the Bible -- don't have the same motivation to debate. And so the discussions here tend to focus more on the Protestant Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

Yeah. My point was that plowshares and swords is not intended to be literal and the metaphor is obvious. Jonah is not. I agree that the case for it to be a Jewish parable (Jews that knew any history could hardly have swallowed the idea of Nineveh and the Assyrians repenting anything) but my point was that the metaphor aspect is not there. The story is what it is, even if nobody would see it as anything but a parable, but it is not a poetic metaphor that is intended to be 'read' as something else, like swords into ploughshares.

[SiNcE_1985]

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?

I am of the belief that the Bible and Christianity...everything of it must be inerrant.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

I am of the belief that the Bible and Christianity...everything of it must be inerrant.

What does that even mean/ Without any slips, mistakes or contradictions At All (and so so must be God's perfect words) or it is generally true and reliable, as a human record (validating God)?

Define your terms, please before we can agree with you or not.

Mind, the Bible fails, either way. If it is wrong and false in broad claims, minor mistakes hardly matter.

[otseng]

Is it possible to debate the ultimate truths of Christianity without reference to inerrancy?

It is possible. The longest debate thread on the forum attests to this.

So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity, why are debates here so focused on it?

Good question. For Christians, I think it's because many have been taught this in most fundamentalist/conservative American churches. For skeptics, it is the easiest thing to attack in Christianity. Just point out one minor error in the Bible and the doctrine of inerrancy falls apart.

[SiNcE_1985]

What does that even mean/ Without any slips, mistakes or contradictions At All (and so so must be God's perfect words) or it is generally true and reliable, as a human record (validating God)?

If I am to believe that God preserved his holy word (the Bible) then there can be no errors, outside maybe scribal errors.

Define your terms, please before we can agree with you or not.

Mind, the Bible fails, either way. If it is wrong and false in broad claims, minor mistakes hardly matter.

I respectfully disagree.

[nawlens]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #27]
There's no such thing as an error free translation. When 'Christians claim the bible is without error all it does is throw Christianity under the bus because most sensible people know translations were done by humans and humans make mistakes. The KJV is full of errors as is every translation.

[TRANSPONDER]

What does that even mean/ Without any slips, mistakes or contradictions At All (and so so must be God's perfect words) or it is generally true and reliable, as a human record (validating God)?

If I am to believe that God preserved his holy word (the Bible) then there can be no errors, outside maybe scribal errors.

Define your terms, please before we can agree with you or not.

Mind, the Bible fails, either way. If it is wrong and false in broad claims, minor mistakes hardly matter.

I respectfully disagree.

Since there clearly are errors (more than 'scribal'), disagreements and mistakes, then God cannot have 'preserved' the book. The best one can do is argue that, errors aside, the broad history is valid and reliable. More or less.

Your respectful disagreement means nothing, as clearly the basic claim of Christianity - that Jesus was resurrected from death in solid form - has to be true. If not, they whole thing collapses.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #27]
There's no such thing as an error free translation. When 'Christians claim the bible is without error all it does is throw Christianity under the bus because most sensible people know translations were done by humans and humans make mistakes. The KJV is full of errors as is every translation.

I said that there are no errors, besides maybe scribal during translation processes.

All other errors/contradictions that have been raised, mainly by skeptics, have addressed and dealt with.