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?

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to POI in post #1]



Inerrancy is an argument for weak minded Christians.

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.

If the Bible has errors, and only weak "minded Christians" believe it has no errors, then how would you argue " Christ raised from the dead?" Maybe only weak minded Christians believe the resurrection and in a book of errors.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to otseng in post #34]

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.

I am not really sure this is the case. I think that more to the truth is the idea that folks have been "sold a bill of goods" and told they must adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy, but when this doctrine is challenged, they cannot defend the position. As I have already said, when I have been in debates with those who hold this position, and clearly defeated the argument, most all of them will revert to attempt to make the argument that at the very least the originals were inerrant, and of course this makes no sense in the least since we do not have the originals in order to demonstrate this, along with the fact that believing the originals were inerrant does nothing for us today.

Our friend Verily had already agreed that insisting the originals were inerrant would-be nonsense, and since he cannot defend the idea that the Bible we now have is without error, he simply waters down the definition to the point that most all Christians would adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy, and we all know that if this was what was meant by inerrancy we would have no debate.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Perspectivo in post #41]

If the Bible has errors, and only weak "minded Christians" believe it has no errors, then how would you argue " Christ raised from the dead?" Maybe only weak minded Christians believe the resurrection and in a book of errors.

Okay, let us go through this. Historians do not believe in any sense that the letters of Ceaser are inerrant. In fact, they not only believe there to be errors, they also believe some of the content to be far-fetched. However, these same historians assure us there are certain things we can know with almost certainty about history by reading these letters. In the same way, by reading the letters contained in the NT most all scholars agree that there are some things we can be certain about, even if there is error in this material. One of the things most all scholars agree upon is that the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive with their own eyes after death.

The reason they all come to this conclusion is because the evidence is overwhelming. With this being the case, there are at least two explanations we can eliminate from the equation. First, the idea these followers were somehow involved in the theft of the body can be eliminated. Next, is the idea that the early followers were never making such a claim, and that the story was embellished over the years. The point is the material does not have to be demonstrated to be without error, in order to have certainty concerning the things we can know by reading the material.

We certainly do not have time to go through all we can know by reading this material whether it be without error or not but allow me to give you just one small example. We can know with absolute certainty that Paul was a real historical figure who was out to put a stop to the claims of the resurrection who converted only to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. Now, you can come up with any sort of explanation you would like in an attempt to explain this, but it would go against what Paul himself had to say, addressed to audiences at the time with Paul having no concern nor any idea that you would be reading these letters some 2000 years later.

The whole point is the material does not have to be without error in order for us to be certain concerning certain things.

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to Perspectivo in post #41]

If the Bible has errors, and only weak "minded Christians" believe it has no errors, then how would you argue " Christ raised from the dead?" Maybe only weak minded Christians believe the resurrection and in a book of errors.

Okay, let us go through this. Historians do not believe in any sense that the letters of Ceaser are inerrant. In fact, they not only believe there to be errors, they also believe some of the content to be far-fetched. However, these same historians assure us there are certain things we can know with almost certainty about history by reading these letters. In the same way, by reading the letters contained in the NT most all scholars agree that there are some things we can be certain about, even if there is error in this material. One of the things most all scholars agree upon is that the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) truly believed they had witnessed Jesus alive with their own eyes after death.

The reason they all come to this conclusion is because the evidence is overwhelming. With this being the case, there are at least two explanations we can eliminate from the equation. First, the idea these followers were somehow involved in the theft of the body can be eliminated. Next, is the idea that the early followers were never making such a claim, and that the story was embellished over the years. The point is the material does not have to be demonstrated to be without error, in order to have certainty concerning the things we can know by reading the material.

We certainly do not have time to go through all we can know by reading this material whether it be without error or not but allow me to give you just one small example. We can know with absolute certainty that Paul was a real historical figure who was out to put a stop to the claims of the resurrection who converted only to become the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time. Now, you can come up with any sort of explanation you would like in an attempt to explain this, but it would go against what Paul himself had to say, addressed to audiences at the time with Paul having no concern nor any idea that you would be reading these letters some 2000 years later.

The whole point is the material does not have to be without error in order for us to be certain concerning certain things.

Matthew's gospel says many people rose from the dead around the time that Jesus rose from the dead, and people thought John the Baptist rose from the dead before anyone else rose from the dead. Seems people were having trouble keeping up with exactly who rose from the dead. In addition to this you admit the Bible has errors.

I imagine Sherlock Holmes would conclude: A book with many errors says, Jesus' resurrection was not particularly unique, since it was just one of many resurrections among a massive amount of apparently simultaneous resurrections. Rumors of John's resurrection preceded the massive amount of simultaneous resurrections, so people were gossiping about resurrections before people thought a massive amount of simultaneous resurrections occured. Therefore, my dear Watson, gossip is gossip and errors are errors. Let's go get some fish and chips!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #40]

Okay, I am getting to the point where I am having trouble keeping up with all the responses and because of time I may not be able to get to them all in a timely manner so please bear with me.

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.

I do not recall ever suggesting what type of encounter this would be, because my point would have nothing to do with that. Certainly, the scholars who are not Christian are not in any way suggesting the resurrection occurred, and these early followers somehow did in fact see the real Jesus alive from the grave, and I would not expect them to, and am fine with that. In fact, allow me to give a quote by the historical scholar Paula Fredriksen who is not a Christian,

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say, and all the historical evidence we have after that attest to their conviction that is what they saw. I am not saying they really did see the real Jesus, I wasn't there, I do not know what they saw. But I do know as a historian they must have seen something.

Again, she is not Christian but is convinced by the evidence we have that these folks were truly convinced in what they saw. She is being honest in her study and saying we can know from the evidence these folks were somehow convinced in what they saw. She goes on to make clear that she is not saying a resurrection occurred, and I am fine with that, and do not expect her to do such a thing. But the fact remains that she is convinced by the evidence we have that these folks were not making the story up.

My point has nothing whatsoever to do with what sort of appearance it may have been. My whole, and only point is, even if what is contained in the NT is not reliable, the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced by the evidence in the NT that these folks were truly convinced in what it is they were reporting. THAT'S IT! Again, the point is, even if the NT could be demonstrated to be unreliable, there are still things we can be certain about by reading the material, because the evidence is so overwhelming.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Perspectivo in post #44]

My friend, none of what you say has any relevance at all to the conversation. The fact is, even if what is recorded in Matthew concerning the dead rising from the graves can be demonstrated to be "fake news" this would not erase the fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ. My point is it is useless to attempt to demonstrate the NT is unreliable because even if it is, there are still certain things we can be sure of by reading the material, because the evidence is overwhelming.

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #46]

Its true no matter what is the typical Christian response. And no, most scholars do not believe the disciples experienced a risen Christ. Scholars believe the NT reflects the beliefs of the early church, and are uncertain what the disciples believed since we don't have any of their writings.

[POI]

we all know we have serious evidence surrounding the resurrection

Yet again, it depends on what you classify as 'serious evidence.' I, myself, do not find any such evidence 'serious' at all. I've explained why, ad nauseam.

[POI]

the fact that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced the early followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were convinced they had encountered the risen Christ.

Which can be immediately followed up by also saying "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." And since validated and corroborated eyewitness attestation would really be just about the only way in attempting to actually validate such a said one-time event from ancient antiquity, your claims, plus 5 bucks, may get you a generic Starbucks coffee, but not much more. Faith anyone?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #38]

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.

You are incorrect in that I do not "place a very high importance on scholarly agreement." In fact, there are any number of things in which I would disagree with them and can explain why. The problem is, these scholars are in agreement concerning the fact that the early followers of Jesus truly were convinced they had witnessed Jesus alive after death, because the evidence is so overwhelming that it is impossible for them to deny it. The funny thing is, they are convinced of this by reading the material which they agree is not eyewitness testimony. LOL! The point is, even if the material is not eyewitness accounts, it is this material which convinces them the earliest followers of Jesus (including the apostles) were convinced in what they saw. You can't make this stuff up! I usually do not refer to the scholarly opinion because I understand that it really does not hold much weight. However, I refer to this one, not because I believe it adds any weight at all, but rather the fact that even those scholars who are not Christian must and have to agree with this being the case, because the evidence is overwhelming, on top of the fact that I highly doubt you will want to attempt to refute it.

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.

Okay, well I am not dealing with the whole of the Bible, and will leave that to you.

Never-the-less, we know the Gospels are not trustworthy regardless.

I really do not know how you know this, but it really does not matter if the NT is reliable or not. Either way, there are certain things we can be sure of by reading the material and it does not have to be reliable to know these things.

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.

Thanks! I will keep this in mind when, and if I ever decide to simply take what the Bible says as being true.

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).

Listen! We will have to save this for another time. I am being overwhelmed with responses, and I do not want to get off track here.

I already have, over and over and over...

Oh really? I must have missed it. Please share with us a scenario which would explain all the facts we can know which would not be unlikely?

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.

No, you do not. We know Jesus was a real historical figure. We know there were those who claimed to have witnessed him alive after death. We know that Paul was opposed to Christianity, we know Paul converted, we know that Paul goes on to be the reason for the spread of Christianity all over the known world at the time, we know that Paul went to prison for what he was proclaiming, we also know that the overwhelming majority of scholars are convinced these earliest followers were truly convinced in what they were reporting. Please give us some sort of explanation for all these things we can know which would be likely.