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?

[SiNcE_1985]

Since there clearly are errors (more than 'scribal'), disagreements and mistakes, then God cannot have 'preserved' the book.

Opinions.

The best one can do is argue that, errors aside, the broad history is valid and reliable. More or less.

More.

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.

Well, you've already been shut down when it comes to the resurrection.

So no need to take it there again.

[TRANSPONDER]

Since there clearly are errors (more than 'scribal'), disagreements and mistakes, then God cannot have 'preserved' the book.

Opinions.

The best one can do is argue that, errors aside, the broad history is valid and reliable. More or less.

More.

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.

Well, you've already been shut down when it comes to the resurrection.

So no need to take it there again.

Your opinions, denial and Faithclaims validate nothing as we have seen it only too often before. In fact almost universal. Dismissal of demonstrable Fact as 'opinion' just makes the apologist look foolish and denialist. Just look at the angelic message in Matthew and Mark (John doesn't have one) where the disciples are given directions to go to Galilee. Twice in matthew. But in Luke that message is changed so they are not told to go to Galilee but they are reminded of what Jesus said in galilee.

This is a demonstrable divergence, not to say alteration, and is not 'opinion' but what is demonstrable. The only excuse is to dismiss it as an error. Which might just do but means that God does not micromanage his Book and errors can creep in.

The Bible/Gospels being more valid than not is your 'opinion' and becomes more and more denialist as more and more of it comes under question. In my 'opinion' we ave a lot more debunk to do. Genesis and the Flood is gone, never mind denial, Daniel is debunked, Prophecy of Tyre is wrong and of course the sun standing still hasn't been a valid claim since the start of the 18th c. Though Bible apologists and believers Never talk about it. But I think Exodust is coming in for debunk as well, and the Biblical version of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Oh yes, the walls of Jericho story isn't true, unless one denies archaeology.

As for the NT. The nativities are dun and dustid. Though nobody (but me ) seems to have realised that Varus was serving as Syrian governor which Archelaus was in Rome, so there is no possibility of a census of Qurinus before 6/7 AD. The two donkeys mistake is well known but I seem to be the first to see that 'Babes and Sucklings' (only in Matthew) is an error from reading the Greek translation (which is the reason for the Virgin prophecy too) and thus Jesus could not have said it.

There are contradictions and alterations all trough the gospels and in the resurrection worse than the rest. You are deep in denial if you think or hope that I have been Shut Down on the resurrection. I think the sheer extent of the terminal contradictions, effectively debunking all credibility, is hardly realised, though some of the experts have seen a spear thrust here or dubious zombies there. But It'll come, I think, despite the denial of Bible - believers, and attempts by Bible apologists to shut atheist Bible critics up, or down, and pretending the debate is over.

It isn't, and not by a long way.

[Yozavan]

If people are damned to an eternity of torment, whereby God uses his omnipotence to torture its inhabitants, inerrancy is a valid topic. Perhaps, Biblical errors will call inerrancy into question, and thereby hell itself. Evangelicals have to own this.

I realize evangelicals are the minority of Christendom, 26 % according to evangelicalfocus.com.

The other 74% can relax, they don't need the doctrine of inerrancy.

[TRANSPONDER]

If people are damned to an eternity of torment, whereby God uses his omnipotence to torture its inhabitants, inerrancy is a valid topic. Perhaps, Biblical errors will call inerrancy into question, and thereby hell itself. Evangelicals have to own this.

I realize evangelicals are the minority of Christendom, 26 % according to evangelicalfocus.com.

The other 74% can relax, they don't need the doctrine of inerrancy.

A fair point. But this has already been done. Apart from a few diehard denialists who hab hardly be aware of what'n in their own Bible, most seem to accept human error has crept in, but substantially the story it tells is reliable.

The matter of inerrancy is no longer and really never was, about God micromanaging his Book. That argument won't fly with anyone halfway reasonable, which is why they best they can do is hint that god is telling them the truth or pushing them (inspiring) to write what they know.

But what matters is the reliability of what is written down not what God had to with the writing of the Book.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your opinions, denial and Faithclaims validate nothing as we have seen it only too often before. In fact almost universal. Dismissal of demonstrable Fact as 'opinion' just makes the apologist look foolish and denialist. Just look at the angelic message in Matthew and Mark (John doesn't have one) where the disciples are given directions to go to Galilee. Twice in matthew. But in Luke that message is changed so they are not told to go to Galilee but they are reminded of what Jesus said in galilee.

Still gnawing away at that bone, are we?

This is a demonstrable divergence, not to say alteration, and is not 'opinion' but what is demonstrable. The only excuse is to dismiss it as an error. Which might just do but means that God does not micromanage his Book and errors can creep in.

I've already addressed this.

And adequately, too.

The Bible/Gospels being more valid than not is your 'opinion'

Yeah, it is my opinion...my informed opinion.

and becomes more and more denialist as more and more of it comes under question. In my 'opinion' we ave a lot more debunk to do.

Genesis and the Flood is gone, never mind denial, Daniel is debunked, Prophecy of Tyre is wrong and of course the sun standing still hasn't been a valid claim since the start of the 18th c. Though Bible apologists and believers Never talk about it. But I think Exodust is coming in for debunk as well, and the Biblical version of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Oh yes, the walls of Jericho story isn't true, unless one denies archaeology.

As for the NT. The nativities are dun and dustid. Though nobody (but me ) seems to have realised that Varus was serving as Syrian governor which Archelaus was in Rome, so there is no possibility of a census of Qurinus before 6/7 AD. The two donkeys mistake is well known but I seem to be the first to see that 'Babes and Sucklings' (only in Matthew) is an error from reading the Greek translation (which is the reason for the Virgin prophecy too) and thus Jesus could not have said it.

There are contradictions and alterations all trough the gospels and in the resurrection worse than the rest. You are deep in denial if you think or hope that I have been Shut Down on the resurrection. I think the sheer extent of the terminal contradictions, effectively debunking all credibility, is hardly realised, though some of the experts have seen a spear thrust here or dubious zombies there. But It'll come, I think, despite the denial of Bible - believers, and attempts by Bible apologists to shut atheist Bible critics up, or down, and pretending the debate is over.

It isn't, and not by a long way.

This is the Gish Gallop that POI was referring too.

[TRANSPONDER]

Your opinions, denial and Faithclaims validate nothing as we have seen it only too often before. In fact almost universal. Dismissal of demonstrable Fact as 'opinion' just makes the apologist look foolish and denialist. Just look at the angelic message in Matthew and Mark (John doesn't have one) where the disciples are given directions to go to Galilee. Twice in matthew. But in Luke that message is changed so they are not told to go to Galilee but they are reminded of what Jesus said in galilee.

Still gnawing away at that bone, are we?

This is a demonstrable divergence, not to say alteration, and is not 'opinion' but what is demonstrable. The only excuse is to dismiss it as an error. Which might just do but means that God does not micromanage his Book and errors can creep in.

I've already addressed this.

And adequately, too.

The Bible/Gospels being more valid than not is your 'opinion'

Yeah, it is my opinion...my informed opinion.

and becomes more and more denialist as more and more of it comes under question. In my 'opinion' we ave a lot more debunk to do.

Genesis and the Flood is gone, never mind denial, Daniel is debunked, Prophecy of Tyre is wrong and of course the sun standing still hasn't been a valid claim since the start of the 18th c. Though Bible apologists and believers Never talk about it. But I think Exodust is coming in for debunk as well, and the Biblical version of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Oh yes, the walls of Jericho story isn't true, unless one denies archaeology.

As for the NT. The nativities are dun and dustid. Though nobody (but me ) seems to have realised that Varus was serving as Syrian governor which Archelaus was in Rome, so there is no possibility of a census of Qurinus before 6/7 AD. The two donkeys mistake is well known but I seem to be the first to see that 'Babes and Sucklings' (only in Matthew) is an error from reading the Greek translation (which is the reason for the Virgin prophecy too) and thus Jesus could not have said it.

There are contradictions and alterations all trough the gospels and in the resurrection worse than the rest. You are deep in denial if you think or hope that I have been Shut Down on the resurrection. I think the sheer extent of the terminal contradictions, effectively debunking all credibility, is hardly realised, though some of the experts have seen a spear thrust here or dubious zombies there. But It'll come, I think, despite the denial of Bible - believers, and attempts by Bible apologists to shut atheist Bible critics up, or down, and pretending the debate is over.

It isn't, and not by a long way.

This is the Gish Gallop that POI was referring too.

None of the above, and thanks for walking into every trap . Gnawing at the bone? Yes, at every bone that debunks the case for the Bible Christianity and jesusgod, no matter how the Bible apologists would wish never to hear it again.

Or the good old claiming they already answered this, and ignoring that it got debunked even if they did. People are not stupid and they know evasion when they see it.

Nor are they fooled by 'informed' denialist faithclaims. What your opinion is doesn't matter; the case you make, matters. I just posted on attempts to win be denying everything. That is where we are right now.

Posting laughing icons with no argument is just a part of it and, as usual, it is a question of the audience, as in any debate. The vote decides, not how denialist one side or the other is.

I did not do a Gish gallop, by posting - what, three arguments set out inviting response. Easy - if you have one. A Gish Gallop is to spout an extended lsft of claims and assertions, usually nonsense and misrepresentation in hopes to make a response difficult if not impossible.

I didn't do that, and if a response is impossible, it isn't because it was a Gish Gallop but because you have no valid answer. And that's just taking your point as a mistake or misunderstanding, rather than a misrepresentation or dirty trick.

You are not doing as well as you clearly think you are.

If that sounds harsh, let me estimate that you are willing to play That is, I estimate that you are too good to cringe. I don't believe you will try to pull the whining 'lack of respect; ploy, And you are more resilient by that and that's a credit to you.

[SiNcE_1985]

None of the above, and thanks for walking into every trap . Gnawing at the bone? Yes, at every bone that debunks the case for the Bible Christianity and jesusgod, no matter how the Bible apologists would wish never to hear it again.

Or the good old claiming they already answered this, and ignoring that it got debunked even if they did. People are not stupid and they know evasion when they see it.

You can't debunk the truth.

Nor are they fooled by 'informed' denialist faithclaims. What your opinion is doesn't matter; the case you make, matters. I just posted on attempts to win be denying everything. That is where we are right now.

Posting laughing icons with no argument is just a part of it and, as usual, it is a question of the audience, as in any debate. The vote decides, not how denialist one side or the other is.

The icons are like civil rights...they are of no use if they can't (or aren't) being used.

I did not do a Gish gallop, by posting - what, three arguments set out inviting response. Easy - if you have one. A Gish Gallop is to spout an extended lsft of claims and assertions, usually nonsense and misrepresentation in hopes to make a response difficult if not impossible.

I didn't do that, and if a response is impossible, it isn't because it was a Gish Gallop but because you have no valid answer. And that's just taking your point as a mistake or misunderstanding, rather than a misrepresentation or dirty trick.

You have a tendency of jotting off 3-5 topics that may/may not be related to the subject of the thread.

Close enough to Gish Gallop.

Now, I am all for one topic leading to another...but you seem to run wild with it lol.

You are not doing as well as you clearly think you are.

Opinions.

If that sounds harsh, let me estimate that you are willing to play That is, I estimate that you are too good to cringe. I don't believe you will try to pull the whining 'lack of respect; ploy, And you are more resilient by that and that's a credit to you.

Not harsh at all.

We cool

[TRANSPONDER]

None of the above, and thanks for walking into every trap . Gnawing at the bone? Yes, at every bone that debunks the case for the Bible Christianity and jesusgod, no matter how the Bible apologists would wish never to hear it again.

Or the good old claiming they already answered this, and ignoring that it got debunked even if they did. People are not stupid and they know evasion when they see it.

You can't debunk the truth.

Nor are they fooled by 'informed' denialist faithclaims. What your opinion is doesn't matter; the case you make, matters. I just posted on attempts to win be denying everything. That is where we are right now.

Posting laughing icons with no argument is just a part of it and, as usual, it is a question of the audience, as in any debate. The vote decides, not how denialist one side or the other is.

The icons are like civil rights...they are of no use if they can't (or aren't) being used.

I did not do a Gish gallop, by posting - what, three arguments set out inviting response. Easy - if you have one. A Gish Gallop is to spout an extended lsft of claims and assertions, usually nonsense and misrepresentation in hopes to make a response difficult if not impossible.

I didn't do that, and if a response is impossible, it isn't because it was a Gish Gallop but because you have no valid answer. And that's just taking your point as a mistake or misunderstanding, rather than a misrepresentation or dirty trick.

You have a tendency of jotting off 3-5 topics that may/may not be related to the subject of the thread.

Close enough to Gish Gallop.

Now, I am all for one topic leading to another...but you seem to run wild with it lol.

You are not doing as well as you clearly think you are.

Opinions.

If that sounds harsh, let me estimate that you are willing to play That is, I estimate that you are too good to cringe. I don't believe you will try to pull the whining 'lack of respect; ploy, And you are more resilient by that and that's a credit to you.

Not harsh at all.

We cool

You are still doing a great job of denial. And you ain't the only one. Never mind Gish Gallops, the debunks of Bible and Christian apologetics has been done, and all we get is denial and posting of dismissive lol icons and question marks. No case, point or argument.

Even your commernt about icons was feeble and pointless. I use them myself, as punctuation or underlining equivalents. You user them as expressions of denial with no real case. You don't get it that the icons are fine as what they are. But useing them as mere dismisal like Nah, opinion or lol, means as little as the word equivalent.

Just sayin' such things when pointed out to the browsers, show that you have nothing and denial in word or icon just shows it, even if you think you are winning points.

As said before it isn't about how stubbornly deny they lost, it about the doubter seeing they lost and are simply denying reality. cue the various endgames, intended to get in the last word. Sometimes running away with a m parting hot, sometimes trying provoke a flame war so they can play the injured martyr, or your ploy of posting endless denial hoping to tire me out. I don't think so as this is actually grist to the atheist mill.

[gadfly]

[Replying to gadfly in post #1]

A number of responses to the number of responses.

First, it was cited that Proverbs contains a contradiction in that it counsels its readers to not answer a fool (I may get the wording and order wrong--it's beside the point) and then immediately reverses the counsel. For skeptics, this is evidence against the doctrine of inerrancy; fundamentalists rally to find a way to defend it as God's inerrant word. Now, I don't want to get off track since the question of this Post is NOT whether the Christian Bible contains errors, but whether any hypothetical errors scattered about it would really disrupt the core propositions of the Christian faith--One God, Jesus raised etc. Yet still it boggles my mind that skeptics leap so quickly on passages like the one in proverbs and say, "Ahah! We got you!"; and Fundamentalists defend immediately by explaining away the contradiction. Neither seem to ask the obvious question: "Was the human author or compiler of these problems so stupid that he himself didn't recognize the discrepancy?" There are two conclusions to draw in response to the question: we must either conclude that the author or compiler was a moron to an unprecedented degree (even children know a contradiction when they see one); or, that the author or compiler was not approaching his product in such an analytically restrictive way as both skeptics and fundamentalists seem to do. I do not claim to know what the author intended by coupling the two obverse maxims--but I do claim that he would have recognized them as contradictory as they stood grammatically, yet put them together with intentions that were not contradictory. (For instance, perhaps the compiler--it is likely Proverbs is not the product of one author--came across two discrepant maxims on the same topic; and perhaps he recognized the wisdom in both approaches to the so-called fool; so, he put them together.) The latter course seems to me the less implausible; the stupidity required of the first conclusion is almost supernatural.

A good practice for all readers is to imagine interrogating the creator of some biblical passage--do we honestly imagine the compiler of Proverbs, upon having the discrepancy pointed out to him, scratching his head in bewilderment and saying, "Aww shucks. How did I miss that??" I think that when we apply this hermeneutic to most (not all) discrepancies, we will (or should) come away less confident in our accusations of blatant error.


P.s. As arrogant as this will sound, I do not read responses to my posts very often--in my experience, topics quickly go off the rails. So, if you think you have a good response to something I have written, please message me.

gadfly

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to gadfly in post #39]


It's the way with proverbs.
Take 'many hands make light work', and on the next page 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. Aw shucks. Worse, 'Fine feathers do not make fine birds', and later on 'Fine feathers make fine birds'. Collections of proverbs may contradict or appear to contradict, because all the above are in a sense, true. The first is about teamwork v confusion, the second about outward show vs inward character.

So I would observe again that minor or debatable or excusable contradictions are not the problem. What I call the 'how many hats Samuel wore' debate. Slips about whether Saul slew 7,000 or 70, 000 or David numbered 70,000 or 7000,000 is really trivial and irrelevant.

The debate should be less about angels dancing on pinheads, and more practical, like the daylight before the sun was made, or the run standing still or talking donkeys. I have observed before that the 'one angel or two' debate is a distraction away from real contradictions to those easy to explain or excuse.

Or, since (at a pinch) the OT can be dismissed under the New Covenant, the Biggies of the NT. Inerrancy is such a nit - pick as to be academic. Clearly God hath not kept his book perfect, it has been subject to errors and mistakes, which humans have tried to eliminate. But the apologists say that Perception isn't the issue but Only God could know that. Which doesn't work either. Inerrancy (in any sense but dunderhead denialism), means 'we can rely on it telling what's true, broadly. We can believe what it says because men wrote down true claims and events about God and Jesus and factually, they prove the Bible, God, Jesus and Christianity true. And That (not 'innerrancy)' is the only real debate.

And it is long over, as surely as the evolution and morality debate. We have only ignorance and denial - people don't know the debate is as long gone and done, as the 2020 election or they deny that they lost, right up to today.

Because the Nativities are provably wrong - one and probably both; and the Resurrection accounts are almost as bad. I know because I have dealt with some of the worst denialists ever and they got beat, though they will never admit it.