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?

[Tcg]

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?

I think it is pretty clear what most folks mean, at least English-speaking folks, by the word "Bible." Sure, there are many different translations and a minor variation in the books included with most Catholic folks including the 7 Deuterocanonical books which most protestants leave out. Most folks, I believe, still think of the physical book, most likely a KJV, on Grandma's shelf or left in the Motel room by the Gideons.

Inerrant isn't complicated either, it means simply without error.

Most confessions that I am aware of refer to the original autographs when claiming inerrancy, not the Bible. This is of course problematic given that we have none. However, the average Christian, if they know the concept, are referring to the book we have presently. You know, the one on Grandma's shelf.

As to the question is it, is the Bible inerrant? Absolutely not. We don't even get halfway through the first book [correction - I meant to say 1st chapter of the first book] until we encounter one. The Earth formed after the Sun, not before. There was never a time when we had an Earth without a Sun. Genesis has it reversed.

Did the authors of Genesis intend it to be taken literally and accurately? Probably not the first part. Authors of the N.T.? Probably so.

[Edited to include the correction pointed out above]

Tcg

[Tcg]

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? Can we know?

Can we know that the Bible inerrant or not? My answer, biblically, is yes, we can know. i believe that the Bible claims to be inerrant. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 New International Version:
"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
It’s breathed by God, how can it contain error? Of course, not everything is meant to be taken literally because there is also poetry, parables, etc. But the Bible is meant to be useful, to equip us. I think 'error' would not help that purpose.

2 Peter 1:20-21
New International Version
"20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Jesus Himself saying in Matthew 5:18, “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” He is referring to the Old Testament, basically saying it was precise, down to the smallest detail, until their purpose is fulfilled. And who write these books? Moses, David, Solomon and others. Are they human? Yes, but they are inspired by God's divine will.

I think you have presented quite well the approach many would use when claiming the Bible is inerrant. However, there are problems with this approach. The first is that none of these verses address the Bible. Both the 2 Timothy and 2 Peter passages refer to "Scripture." The question remains as to what each author meant, but neither could be referring to that Bible as it had not yet been compiled when they wrote those words. The presumed words of Jesus also don't reference the Bible, but rather probably just a subset of the Old Testament.

Another problem is that they support the claim of inspiration rather than inerrancy. A writing could be inspired and yet not inerrant.

A third and perhaps most egregious, is that this represents circular reasoning. Using the Bible to support a claim about the Bible is a fallacy. This can be illustrated by the following fictional conversation:

Claimant: Johnny always tells the truth.
Questioner: How do you know this?
Claimant: Johnny told me so.

Obviously, if Johnny doesn't always tell the truth, then we can't believe his claim to.


Tcg

[Verily]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Inerrancy is an argument no Christian can ever win.

Inerrancy isn't the battle of the witts to decide which of us is more clever. If that were the case let inerrancy be anathema! Inerrancy is about whether Christ, who can be known experientially, has a Book that can be trusted explicitly.

I mean heck, we do not even know if the ending of Mark was original to the text.

I believe it ended on verse 8. The status one assigns to the appendage, does not oppose the objective, ie., a resurrected Christ.

Moreover, we all know for a fact that we have variances between manuscripts which alone demonstrates what we now have cannot possibly be inerrant.

The dissemination of God's message, via the peculiarities of transmission: manuscripts, printers, digital formats, translations; is subject to the peculiarities of those particular transmissions: scribal mistakes, misprints, glitches, translation agendas.This is how real life works, and the Bible isn't immune from being a book, but the abundance of manuscripts provide the means of clarifying those peculiarities.

The one thing which really blows my mind is when I have this debate with other Christians and they come to realize that what we now have in our hands cannot possibly be inerrant, these folks will respond with the argument that "the originals were without error."

I agree with you . I also find the infallible autograph argument irrelevant.

This argument blows my mind because we do not even have the originals to even be able to make such an argument, on top of the fact even if the originals were inerrant, what good would that do us today?

I agree. A lost book wouldn't help us today.

Christians are shooting themselves in the foot by attempting to argue for inerrancy. Inerrancy is an argument for weak minded Christians. In other words, these Christians must and have to believe the Bible is without error, because if the Bible were to be demonstrated to contain error, their whole belief would be shattered.

Inerrancy isn't about shattering beliefs. If inerrancy is just a battle of the witts, then let it be shattered and anathema! For the Christian, and perhaps the curious inquirer, its about whether Christ who can be known experientially, has a Book that can be trusted explicitly.

This is exactly why the argument is for weak minded folk. The debate is not whether the Bible is inerrant, but rather if there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the reports contained in the NT concerning the resurrection. In other words, our argument as Christians should be, Christ raised from the dead, with the facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection. Because you see, if we win the argument of Christ raised from the dead, then there would be no need in attempting to defend the inerrancy of the Bible.

I would never attempt to introduce someone to Christ through the cleverness of myself! Jesus doesn't need my witts. Jesus extends his gracious invitation to all: Come unto me,all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

My point is, I do not have to be convinced that what the author of Luke and Acts recorded was inerrant, in order to know if there would be reasons to believe the reports. We are wasting our time on arguments which do not matter in the least, while ignoring the only argument which matters which is Christ raised from the dead, which would put to rest all other arguments.

I agree with the spirit of your sentiment, but not the method. Nobody argues in a vacuum. A skeptic would think of a dozen different arguments while I'm still trying to address his first!
I believe that Christ, who can be known experientially, has a book that can be trusted explicitly. A curious inquirer may be interested in the former, but the skeptic only cares about the latter. I would never attempt to present Christ through the cleverness of my own arguments, but I do attempt to present Christ's book in a manner consistent with his view of it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #20]


I'm not sure about what you call "minimal facts". 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 we can sit down and agree upon certain things then we have something to work upon. So then, 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, in that at the very least the writings cause us to know this to be the case. 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).

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. 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.

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? I have no problem with one coming to different conclusions than they once held. I mean heck, there have been a good number of folks who were convinced atheists at one time who convert to Christianity. The problem I have is with those who change their position, who then want to insist there would be no reason involved at all in the position they once held when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case. The point is, simply because one did not use reason to hold a certain position, does not at all demonstrate there is no reason to be had in that position. One does not follow the other.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Verily in post #23]

Let's take one thing at a time.

The dissemination of God's message, via the peculiarities of transmission: manuscripts, printers, digital formats, translations; is subject to the peculiarities of those particular transmissions: scribal mistakes, misprints, glitches, translation agendas.This is how real life works, and the Bible isn't immune from being a book, but the abundance of manuscripts provide the means of clarifying those peculiarities.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Above, you are clearly admitting the Bible is like any other book and is not immune from scribal mistakes. This demonstrates that what we now hold in our hands is not inerrant. However, a book, nor anything else for that matter does not have to be inerrant (without error) in order for the book, or anything else to be accurate. As an example, we do not hold any other book to be inerrant, but this does not mean that said book is not trustworthy. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand acknowledge that the "Bible isn't immune from being a book" and then on the other insist the Bible is without error. The main point here is the fact that there is no way you can attempt to argue that the Bible you now hold in your hand is without error.

This is what leads most other folks who attempt to make such arguments go on to attempt to make the argument that at least the originals were without error, and you and I seem to agree that such an argument is ridiculous. The question then remains, is the Bible you now have without error?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Verily in post #23]

Inerrancy is about whether Christ, who can be known experientially, has a Book that can be trusted explicitly.

My friend, inerrancy is about the Bible being without any errors. Period! Either you believe the Bible is without any errors, or you believe there to be errors in what we now have. The Bible does not have to be inerrant in order for it to be trustworthy.

I believe it ended on verse 8.

What you happen to believe has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The fact is the early manuscripts do not contain anything after verse 8, and therefore, either the rest was added later, or the earlier manuscripts failed to report the whole story. So then, we either have a mistake in that the earlier manuscripts failed to report all Mark intended, or we have an addition which is not inerrant.

The status one assigns to the appendage, does not oppose the objective, ie., a resurrected Christ.

Which has been exactly my point! The Bible does not have to be inerrant in order to get the message across of Christ raised from the dead. You have admitted the Bible we now have could not possibly be without error, and have agreed that it would be ridiculous for one to attempt to make the argument the originals were without error, and what we are left with is a Bible which you seem to agree most certainly contains some sort of error even if you argue that the errors contained do not amount to much. Either the Bible we now have is without error, or it contains error, and it does not matter how insignificant you believe the errors to be. Does the Bible we now have contain error, or is the Bible we now have without error?

Inerrancy isn't about shattering beliefs.

You need to read carefully here. There are folks, and Churches which insist on inerrancy, who go on to insist that anyone tied to their Church must and have to hold to inerrancy, and it is the doctrines such as this which cause folks to lose their faith. In other words, these folks are not really rejecting Christianity as they seem to believe but are rather rejecting these reckless theologies which cause them to lose faith. It kind of reminds me of the true meaning of the verse you seem to like which is,

Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Because you see, Jesus was referring to all the man-made laws of the scribes and Pharisees, and Jesus was pleading with folks to come to Him, and He would free them from the burden of the law. In the same way, we have Churches which place these burdens upon folks as to what they must believe such as inerrancy. Inerrancy is not an essential belief. In other words, no one is going to hell because they understand the Bible we now have is not without error. I am not so sure about those religious leaders who place these sorts of burdens upon their flock.

For the Christian, and perhaps the curious inquirer, its about whether Christ who can be known experientially, has a Book that can be trusted explicitly.

ex·plic·it·ly
[ikˈsplisətlē]
adverb
explicitly (adverb)
in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt:

Do you see the definition above? The Bible can be clear and detailed in manner leaving no room for doubt, but this does not necessitate that it be without error.

I would never attempt to introduce someone to Christ through the cleverness of myself! Jesus doesn't need my witts.

What in the world does the above have to do with whether the Bible is without error?

I agree with the spirit of your sentiment, but not the method.

What in the world does this mean? I mean, either you are arguing the Bible we now have is without error, or you do not hold to this position. There is no "method" involved here. Folks who attempt to argue for inerrancy are taking up an argument they cannot win, and you are demonstrating this to be the case. You seem to want to argue for inerrancy but then go on to admit (because you have to) the Bible we now have cannot possibly be free of error and then go on to agree that whether the original manuscripts were inerrant would be irrelevant. You are in a no-win situation. However, if you would drop the idea that the Bible is without error and use what is contained in the Bible to demonstrate there are certain things we can know from what is contained, whether the Bible be without error or not. You see, you can make this argument and the idea the Bible is without error does not matter in the least.

Again, the bottom line is whether there is reason to believe Christ was raised from the dead, and we do not need a Bible without error to make the case. In fact, such an argument is a determent to the case.

[Verily]

[Replying to Verily in post #23]

Let's take one thing at a time.

The dissemination of God's message, via the peculiarities of transmission: manuscripts, printers, digital formats, translations; is subject to the peculiarities of those particular transmissions: scribal mistakes, misprints, glitches, translation agendas.This is how real life works, and the Bible isn't immune from being a book, but the abundance of manuscripts provide the means of clarifying those peculiarities.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Above, you are clearly admitting the Bible is like any other book and is not immune from scribal mistakes. This demonstrates that what we now hold in our hands is not inerrant.

So you don't believe an analysis of the manuscripts can resolve the variants?

However, a book, nor anything else for that matter does not have to be inerrant (without error) in order for the book, or anything else to be accurate. As an example, we do not hold any other book to be inerrant, but this does not mean that said book is not trustworthy.

You're assuming people trust sources of information. We live in a particularly skeptical society that doubts the trustworthiness of everything: governments, school teachers, parents, social media, recipe books etc.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand acknowledge that the "Bible isn't immune from being a book" and then on the other insist the Bible is without error.

I elaborated what I meant by, the Bible isn't immune from being a book, but I'll elaborate it again in a different way. The transmission of God's message through the agency of manuscripts, technology, and translations, is not immune to the frailties of those formats, but that same agency can be used to deduce and correct the mistakes in those various formats. If God suspended the frailties of those formats, through brute force syllabication, then we'd be debating the merit of brute force syllabication, and skeptics would still be skeptics.

The main point here is the fact that there is no way you can attempt to argue that the Bible you now hold in your hand is without error.
This is what leads most other folks who attempt to make such arguments go on to attempt to make the argument that at least the originals were without error, and you and I seem to agree that such an argument is ridiculous.

Yes, we agree the original autograph argument is irrelevant.

The question then remains, is the Bible you now have without error?

The Church isn't static and neither are our languages. We will always need translations upon translations, which follow the principles of Nehemiah 8:8, but the source will always be the manuscripts. The inability of our ever-changing languages to produce a perfect translation, is the limitations of our ever-changing languages, not a negation of inerrancy.

Fortunately, Christ is not some impersonal force confined to the rambling of apologetics. Christ can be known experientially, and his Book can be trusted explicitly. Even a clumsy paraphrase into the most primitive language on earth is still the word of God.

Inerrancy isn't about brute force syllabication and perfect translations. Inerrancy is about whether God's message has been conveyed accurately. Either the Bible accurately describes the sinfulness of our misery-filled world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes God's gracious separation of Israel, from a world full of selfish empires celebrating the degradation of the world , or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes God's law which condemns such a world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes prophecies of a Savior from the degradation of the world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes Christ's earthy ministry in this misery-filled world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes the salvific nuances of Christ's ministry or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes Christ's plan to return to this misery-filled world or it does not.

I'm having difficulties formating the text in my posts. I'm a perplexed noob! If a quote a long post and insert my responses, it appears as if my words were yours and yours were mine. sorry for any confusion.

[otseng]

I think it is pretty clear what most folks mean, at least English-speaking folks, by the word "Bible." Sure, there are many different translations and a minor variation in the books included with most Catholic folks including the 7 Deuterocanonical books which most protestants leave out. Most folks, I believe, still think of the physical book, most likely a KJV, on Grandma's shelf or left in the Motel room by the Gideons.

Inerrant isn't complicated either, it means simply without error.

Most confessions that I am aware of refer to the original autographs when claiming inerrancy, not the Bible. This is of course problematic given that we have none. However, the average Christian, if they know the concept, are referring to the book we have presently. You know, the one on Grandma's shelf.

Right. So, technically inerrancy has nothing to do with the English translations that we read. So the question whether the "Bible" (as commonly understood) is inerrant or not is a meaningless question. Even the question if the autographs are inerrant or not is a meaningless question since we don't have the autographs.

As to the question is it, is the Bible inerrant? Absolutely not. We don't even get halfway through the first book [correction - I meant to say 1st chapter of the first book] until we encounter one. The Earth formed after the Sun, not before. There was never a time when we had an Earth without a Sun. Genesis has it reversed.

If the creation account is taken metaphorically, then why should it be considered errant? Errancy would only apply to errors in literal claims that do not match reality, not metaphorical claims.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Verily in post #0]

So you don't believe an analysis of the manuscripts can resolve the variants?

GOOD GRIEF! You continue to make my argument. The variants you are admitting to are errors, mistakes and it does not matter as to whether "an analysis of the manuscripts can resolve the mistakes. You seem to want to continue to hold to inerrancy all the while acknowledging mistakes and errors.

You're assuming people trust sources of information. We live in a particularly skeptical society that doubts the trustworthiness of everything: governments, school teachers, parents, social media, recipe books etc.

None of what you have to say above has anything at all to do with whether something must and has to be inerrant in order for it to contain accurate information which can be trusted. I do not believe you consider yourself to be inerrant, so does this mean you also believe you cannot be trusted? Whether folks are skeptical are not has nothing to do with the Bible being without error. The point is, no matter how skeptical folks are, they do not insist the source of information must and has to be inerrant in order to be trusted.

I elaborated what I meant by, the Bible isn't immune from being a book, but I'll elaborate it again in a different way. The transmission of God's message through the agency of manuscripts, technology, and translations, is not immune to the frailties of those formats, but that same agency can be used to deduce and correct the mistakes in those various formats. If God suspended the frailties of those formats, through brute force syllabication, then we'd be debating the merit of brute force syllabication, and skeptics would still be skeptics.

You do not need to elaborate anything at all except to tell us whether the Bible you now hold in your hand is without error and it does not matter as to how those errors may have come about. It is like your argument is, there may be errors in the Bible we now have, but there are good reasons why we have these errors.

The inability of our ever-changing languages to produce a perfect translation, is the limitations of our ever-changing languages, not a negation of inerrancy.

And here it is! The problem is "our ever-changing language" which means we can never produce a perfect translation, but then you go on to argue for inerrancy. GOOD GRIEF! My friend, it does not matter as to why we do not have a perfect translation, because if we do not have a perfect translation, then we do not have inerrancy. However, the problem is not simply that we do not have a perfect translation, but rather that there are errors which is to be expected. However, if there are indeed errors, then we do not have a Bible which is without error. Again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot insist the Bible is without error and then go on to acknowledge error in the Bible.

Inerrancy is about whether God's message has been conveyed accurately.

NO! Inerrancy means without error. I am arguing that "God's message has been conveyed accurately" what I am not insisting is that the whole of the Bible is without error. It is like you want to have your own definition of inerrancy. If inerrancy only entailed "God's message has been conveyed accurately" then we would have no argument. However, you know, I know, and everyone else knows inerrancy insists the whole of the Bible is without error.

Either the Bible accurately describes the sinfulness of our misery-filled world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes God's gracious separation of Israel, from a world full of selfish empires celebrating the degradation of the world , or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes God's law which condemns such a world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes prophecies of a Savior from the degradation of the world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes Christ's earthy ministry in this misery-filled world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes the salvific nuances of Christ's ministry or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes Christ's plan to return to this misery-filled world or it does not.

Whether the Bible accurately describes these things or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with inerrancy. Inerrancy is the idea that the Bible we now have is without any error, PERIOD! Again, if inerrancy only involved what you describe then we would have no argument. It seems to me that you understand clearly that you cannot in any way defend the idea that the Bible we now have is without error. With this being the case, you now want to change the meaning of inerrancy to only entail that the Bible accurately conveys God's message to humanity. I will agree that the Bible accurately conveys God's plan, and message to humanity. What I do not insist is that the Bible we now have is without any error.

The ball is now in your court. Inerrancy has nothing whatsoever to do with "whether God's message has been conveyed accurately." Rather, inerrancy only has to do with the Bible being without any sort of error. So then, do you hold to the idea that the Bible we now have is without error? Or do you simply believe the Bible accurately conveys God's plan and message to humanity? If it is the former, we disagree. If it is the latter, we have no argument because you are not arguing for inerrancy.

[Verily]

[Replying to Verily in post #0]

So you don't believe an analysis of the manuscripts can resolve the variants?

GOOD GRIEF! You continue to make my argument. The variants you are admitting to are errors, mistakes and it does not matter as to whether "an analysis of the manuscripts can resolve the mistakes. You seem to want to continue to hold to inerrancy all the while acknowledging mistakes and errors.

You're assuming people trust sources of information. We live in a particularly skeptical society that doubts the trustworthiness of everything: governments, school teachers, parents, social media, recipe books etc.

None of what you have to say above has anything at all to do with whether something must and has to be inerrant in order for it to contain accurate information which can be trusted. I do not believe you consider yourself to be inerrant, so does this mean you also believe you cannot be trusted? Whether folks are skeptical are not has nothing to do with the Bible being without error. The point is, no matter how skeptical folks are, they do not insist the source of information must and has to be inerrant in order to be trusted.

I elaborated what I meant by, the Bible isn't immune from being a book, but I'll elaborate it again in a different way. The transmission of God's message through the agency of manuscripts, technology, and translations, is not immune to the frailties of those formats, but that same agency can be used to deduce and correct the mistakes in those various formats. If God suspended the frailties of those formats, through brute force syllabication, then we'd be debating the merit of brute force syllabication, and skeptics would still be skeptics.

You do not need to elaborate anything at all except to tell us whether the Bible you now hold in your hand is without error and it does not matter as to how those errors may have come about. It is like your argument is, there may be errors in the Bible we now have, but there are good reasons why we have these errors.

The inability of our ever-changing languages to produce a perfect translation, is the limitations of our ever-changing languages, not a negation of inerrancy.

And here it is! The problem is "our ever-changing language" which means we can never produce a perfect translation, but then you go on to argue for inerrancy. GOOD GRIEF! My friend, it does not matter as to why we do not have a perfect translation, because if we do not have a perfect translation, then we do not have inerrancy. However, the problem is not simply that we do not have a perfect translation, but rather that there are errors which is to be expected. However, if there are indeed errors, then we do not have a Bible which is without error. Again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot insist the Bible is without error and then go on to acknowledge error in the Bible.

Inerrancy is about whether God's message has been conveyed accurately.

NO! Inerrancy means without error. I am arguing that "God's message has been conveyed accurately" what I am not insisting is that the whole of the Bible is without error. It is like you want to have your own definition of inerrancy. If inerrancy only entailed "God's message has been conveyed accurately" then we would have no argument. However, you know, I know, and everyone else knows inerrancy insists the whole of the Bible is without error.

Either the Bible accurately describes the sinfulness of our misery-filled world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes God's gracious separation of Israel, from a world full of selfish empires celebrating the degradation of the world , or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes God's law which condemns such a world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes prophecies of a Savior from the degradation of the world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes Christ's earthy ministry in this misery-filled world or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes the salvific nuances of Christ's ministry or it does not. Either the Bible accurately describes Christ's plan to return to this misery-filled world or it does not.

Whether the Bible accurately describes these things or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with inerrancy. Inerrancy is the idea that the Bible we now have is without any error, PERIOD! Again, if inerrancy only involved what you describe then we would have no argument. It seems to me that you understand clearly that you cannot in any way defend the idea that the Bible we now have is without error. With this being the case, you now want to change the meaning of inerrancy to only entail that the Bible accurately conveys God's message to humanity. I will agree that the Bible accurately conveys God's plan, and message to humanity. What I do not insist is that the Bible we now have is without any error.

The ball is now in your court. Inerrancy has nothing whatsoever to do with "whether God's message has been conveyed accurately." Rather, inerrancy only has to do with the Bible being without any sort of error. So then, do you hold to the idea that the Bible we now have is without error? Or do you simply believe the Bible accurately conveys God's plan and message to humanity? If it is the former, we disagree. If it is the latter, we have no argument because you are not arguing for inerrancy.

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. Instead of constantly quipping "GOOD GRIEF" at me and talking at your definition of inerrancy, why not talk to me about mine?

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