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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Welcome to the forum and debate.

Inerrancy comes in two iterations.

God's perfect word.

No make that three iterations

God's perfect word, which hardly anyone would claim. It has errors

God's word written by men. Any errors are their fault. This is the position of Bible apologetics; broadly it's all true and errors are either unimportant, misinterpreted and not really errors or true, but just a few mistakes crept in.

Example 'One angel or two?' (at the tomb). The 'explanation' is that there were two angels but one writer only bothered about the one that did the talking. This an excuse as they stories differ more than that, but it might satisfy those who don't bother to check.

And the one that I added though it hardly qualifies as inerrancy "Metaphorically rue' which means untrue stories about true things. Or fairy tak les, but fairies are actually real.

Inerrancy really translates as telling truth or making true claims about the things that matter,whether or not some things in the bible are actually in error.

Apologetics excuses almost always accept that some things as they read in the bible cannot be correct, but they are explained as misunderstood by the people of the time, or people now or both.

e.g The daylight and night (morning and evening) were before the sun was made is not what happened, but it was a true fact that looked like thet; the sun was there, but covered by cloud.

On the other hand, the description of a flat circular earth with a sky dome over it (the usual cosmology of the time) is not what the Bible is really saying (because Bible apologists - even Creationists - do not (in my experience) usually argue for a flat earth. It really means a globe if we "Understood" (interpreted) it properly.
Either excuse or explanation can be used as preferred in order to preserve the credibility of the Bible as telling the truth about the things that matter. And that is what 'inerrancy really means. It isn't any more about a claim to a perfectly divinely micromanaged book without any errors or mistakes at all.

[1213]

...(e.g. Proverbs tells us both to answer a fool according to his folly AND to NOT answer a fool according to his folly)

I think the scripture means, don't answer like a fool, but answer like for a fool. Don't yourself be like a fool, and answer in the best way for the fool so that he could see his foolishness. I am surprised, if someone sees a contradiction in this.

Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest you become like him, even you. Answer a fool according to his foolishness, that he not be wise in his own eyes.
Pro. 26:4-5

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?

For me this topic comes mainly from atheists. I personally would not see it a problem, if there are small errors in the Bible, because I think it is written by humans. However, I also don't accept baseless claims. By what I see, no one has been able to show a real error in the Bible, which is why I think it is probably the only book without errors.

[TRANSPONDER]

...(e.g. Proverbs tells us both to answer a fool according to his folly AND to NOT answer a fool according to his folly)

I think the scripture means, don't answer like a fool, but answer like for a fool. Don't yourself be like a fool, and answer in the best way for the fool so that he could see his foolishness. I am surprised, if someone sees a contradiction in this.

Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest you become like him, even you. Answer a fool according to his foolishness, that he not be wise in his own eyes.
Pro. 26:4-5

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?

For me this topic comes mainly from atheists. I personally would not see it a problem, if there are small errors in the Bible, because I think it is written by humans. However, I also don't accept baseless claims. By what I see, no one has been able to show a real error in the Bible, which is why I think it is probably the only book without errors.

Yes. I'd call that 'picking your battles'. If I see no point in responding to a post (let'ssay a string of faithclaims and "I believe it" there's little point for me in responding, though something mide be made from "Why do you believe it?"

And, yes, that is the 'small errors don't signify" argument, which is why I do "Biggies". They can't be waved away so easily and feeble excuses and dismissal just looks....Foolish.

[Difflugia]

to the extent that if the bible can be shown to contain one contradiction then it logically follows that every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has made that claim, but that's not the one I usually see. The argument is that if the Bible can be shown to contain one contradiction then it logically follows that it isn't inerrant. No more, no less.

This "all or none" position is maintained on both sides of the debate,

That's because it's part of the definition of inerrancy. That's like being surprised that debates about vegetarianism seem to always involve whether or not one should eat meat. ON BOTH SIDES!

So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity,

You need to define your position a bit more closely. According to Pew, half of American adults that believe that "holy scripture is the Word of God" also believe that it "should be taken literally." Is that what you mean by "such a minority position?"

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

Not if the discussion includes inerrantists. If you want to have a discussion that excludes inerrantists, though, just say so in your debate question.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.It's a bit too tempting to make a strawman of the Bible critical position.

Both sides can agree that even if some things in the Bible are wrong, some things could be right or nearly so. God micromanaging 'inerrancy' would be undone, but True, give or take some errors (whether inspired by God or not)( is still possible.

BUT 'unreliable' is also true. Fond one thing wrong, it means that we can't rust the Bible just because it says so. So it is not 'rejected' (totally thrown in the bin) just because of a few mistakes or errors, but it is certainly open to doubt and question and cannot be accepted as true simply because it is in the Bible, which is probably the point of 'inerrancy' and the debunking of it.

"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it"

It does not. Never and not by a long way.

"The Bible says it, I disprove it, that debunks it"

Because the more and worse the errors are, the less true, reliable and credible it looks. That is a valid position and be allowed to be replaces (even with good intent) by a misrepresentation (strawman) if its' argument.

over 120 guests and not all Bots. That's excellent.

[gadfly]

Welcome to the forum and debate.

Inerrancy comes in two iterations.

God's perfect word.

No make that three iterations

God's perfect word, which hardly anyone would claim. It has errors

God's word written by men. Any errors are their fault. This is the position of Bible apologetics; broadly it's all true and errors are either unimportant, misinterpreted and not really errors or true, but just a few mistakes crept in.

Example 'One angel or two?' (at the tomb). The 'explanation' is that there were two angels but one writer only bothered about the one that did the talking. This an excuse as they stories differ more than that, but it might satisfy those who don't bother to check.

And the one that I added though it hardly qualifies as inerrancy "Metaphorically rue' which means untrue stories about true things. Or fairy tak les, but fairies are actually real.

Inerrancy really translates as telling truth or making true claims about the things that matter,whether or not some things in the bible are actually in error.

Apologetics excuses almost always accept that some things as they read in the bible cannot be correct, but they are explained as misunderstood by the people of the time, or people now or both.

e.g The daylight and night (morning and evening) were before the sun was made is not what happened, but it was a true fact that looked like thet; the sun was there, but covered by cloud.

On the other hand, the description of a flat circular earth with a sky dome over it (the usual cosmology of the time) is not what the Bible is really saying (because Bible apologists - even Creationists - do not (in my experience) usually argue for a flat earth. It really means a globe if we "Understood" (interpreted) it properly.
Either excuse or explanation can be used as preferred in order to preserve the credibility of the Bible as telling the truth about the things that matter. And that is what 'inerrancy really means. It isn't any more about a claim to a perfectly divinely micromanaged book without any errors or mistakes at all.

I wonder if this break down is a bit simplistic; what's more, it seems to ignore centuries of Christian readers who never heard of the word "inerrancy" (or its equivalency in Greek or Latin). Origen was aware of discrepancies and did not try to reconcile them because he thought them irrelevant when it comes to the unanimous claims of the bible. The breakdown also ignores that the ancient authors were not aware of modern requirements--Matthew did not know that he was not allowed by us to add an angel here for stylistic purposes; Luke did not know that moderns would frown upon his genealogy bc it was clearly stylized. They were ancient authors, writing according to the literary standards they knew. When the author (and editors) of Genesis composed Genesis 1-2, they had no idea about the modern scientific viewpoint. They were writing according to the genres of their time.

When I advocate a debate that makes no recourse to the magical word "inerrancy", I advocate reading the Bible like any other historical document: taking into account genre, authorial intent, and then the methodology of modern historiography.

What would happen if we read every text individually; and read it not as a text that claims some magical status, but as an anthology of literature? I argue that people could not longer say, "Ha! See here, a contradiction, the whole damn thing is a lie."

[gadfly]

...(e.g. Proverbs tells us both to answer a fool according to his folly AND to NOT answer a fool according to his folly)

I think the scripture means, don't answer like a fool, but answer like for a fool. Don't yourself be like a fool, and answer in the best way for the fool so that he could see his foolishness. I am surprised, if someone sees a contradiction in this.

Answer not a fool according to his foolishness, lest you become like him, even you. Answer a fool according to his foolishness, that he not be wise in his own eyes.
Pro. 26:4-5

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?

For me this topic comes mainly from atheists. I personally would not see it a problem, if there are small errors in the Bible, because I think it is written by humans. However, I also don't accept baseless claims. By what I see, no one has been able to show a real error in the Bible, which is why I think it is probably the only book without errors.

As for the supposed contradiction in Proverbs, I wonder if the compiler (anonymous to us) had two disparate pieces of wisdom literature, respected them both, and put them both in. We see this kind of thing in Jewish literature quite a bit. What the original sayings meant, we of course don't know. But it is not hard to see some wisdom in both--hence the editor included both.

I do not think it is only skeptics and atheists that latch on to the doctrine of inerrancy--as I have said, this narrow view of the bible came first from a minority of Christians, what today are referred to as fundamentalists. I think skeptics have a field-day with the doctrine, and would be wary to debate Christianity from any other view because it would force them into difficult terrain--terrain that requires a ton of research: historical training, intimate familiarity with ancient sources, ancient languages, etc. In short, the very, VERY, late and American doctrine of Inerrancy basically gave the skeptic the higher ground; the skeptic is therefore unlikely going to want to change fields, even though most Christian readers are there.

[gadfly]

to the extent that if the bible can be shown to contain one contradiction then it logically follows that every sentence in the bible is unreliable and should be rejected.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has made that claim, but that's not the one I usually see. The argument is that if the Bible can be shown to contain one contradiction then it logically follows that it isn't inerrant. No more, no less.

This "all or none" position is maintained on both sides of the debate,

That's because it's part of the definition of inerrancy. That's like being surprised that debates about vegetarianism seem to always involve whether or not one should eat meat. ON BOTH SIDES!

So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity,

You need to define your position a bit more closely. According to Pew, half of American adults that believe that "holy scripture is the Word of God" also believe that it "should be taken literally." Is that what you mean by "such a minority position?"

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

Not if the discussion includes inerrantists. If you want to have a discussion that excludes inerrantists, though, just say so in your debate question.

Hey Diffulgia,

I read through your comments. My initial impression is that you were showing off with pedantry. I hope I am wrong.

For instance, it seems your approach is to read a line, respond combatively, then read a line, respond combatively, but without really attempting to grasp the overall picture and trying to understand where I am coming from. Again, it is just an impression, and I hope I am wrong, for that it is a very uncharitable approach to a conversation, and I would be very disappointed if this is how most members interact.

I'm sure someone, somewhere has made that claim, but that's not the one I usually see. The argument is that if the Bible can be shown to contain one contradiction then it logically follows that it isn't inerrant. No more, no less.

That is not my experience, certainly not here. For instance, I have never read any skeptic who has passionately argued that though the Exodus probably did not happen, still David is an historical figure. Again, I have never read any skeptic here who has passionately argued for Jesus' existence, though they denied his miracles. If you can find a skeptic here who has defended claims made by the bible, please report. Otherwise, my general impression is that the Bible contains contradictions, therefore it can't be trusted. But again, I think most readers will know what I was getting at.

This "all or none" position is maintained on both sides of the debate,

That's because it's part of the definition of inerrancy. That's like being surprised that debates about vegetarianism seem to always involve whether or not one should eat meat. ON BOTH SIDES!

Never once said I was surprised. I was simply stating an observation. Again, are you showing off?

So, if the doctrine of inerrancy holds such a minority position in broader Christianity,

You need to define your position a bit more closely. According to Pew, half of American adults that believe that "holy scripture is the Word of God" also believe that it "should be taken literally." Is that what you mean by "such a minority position?"

My position??? My position is a question, "How important is inerrancy?"

half of American adults that believe that "holy scripture is the Word of God" also believe that it "should be taken literally." Is that what you mean by "such a minority position?"

Yes. If reading my entire post before responding did not make that obvious, can you please advise on how I could have made that clearer??

[TRANSPONDER]

Welcome to the forum and debate.

Inerrancy comes in two iterations.

God's perfect word.

No make that three iterations

God's perfect word, which hardly anyone would claim. It has errors

God's word written by men. Any errors are their fault. This is the position of Bible apologetics; broadly it's all true and errors are either unimportant, misinterpreted and not really errors or true, but just a few mistakes crept in.

Example 'One angel or two?' (at the tomb). The 'explanation' is that there were two angels but one writer only bothered about the one that did the talking. This an excuse as they stories differ more than that, but it might satisfy those who don't bother to check.

And the one that I added though it hardly qualifies as inerrancy "Metaphorically rue' which means untrue stories about true things. Or fairy tak les, but fairies are actually real.

Inerrancy really translates as telling truth or making true claims about the things that matter,whether or not some things in the bible are actually in error.

Apologetics excuses almost always accept that some things as they read in the bible cannot be correct, but they are explained as misunderstood by the people of the time, or people now or both.

e.g The daylight and night (morning and evening) were before the sun was made is not what happened, but it was a true fact that looked like thet; the sun was there, but covered by cloud.

On the other hand, the description of a flat circular earth with a sky dome over it (the usual cosmology of the time) is not what the Bible is really saying (because Bible apologists - even Creationists - do not (in my experience) usually argue for a flat earth. It really means a globe if we "Understood" (interpreted) it properly.
Either excuse or explanation can be used as preferred in order to preserve the credibility of the Bible as telling the truth about the things that matter. And that is what 'inerrancy really means. It isn't any more about a claim to a perfectly divinely micromanaged book without any errors or mistakes at all.

I wonder if this break down is a bit simplistic; what's more, it seems to ignore centuries of Christian readers who never heard of the word "inerrancy" (or its equivalency in Greek or Latin). Origen was aware of discrepancies and did not try to reconcile them because he thought them irrelevant when it comes to the unanimous claims of the bible. The breakdown also ignores that the ancient authors were not aware of modern requirements--Matthew did not know that he was not allowed by us to add an angel here for stylistic purposes; Luke did not know that moderns would frown upon his genealogy bc it was clearly stylized. They were ancient authors, writing according to the literary standards they knew. When the author (and editors) of Genesis composed Genesis 1-2, they had no idea about the modern scientific viewpoint. They were writing according to the genres of their time.

When I advocate a debate that makes no recourse to the magical word "inerrancy", I advocate reading the Bible like any other historical document: taking into account genre, authorial intent, and then the methodology of modern historiography.

What would happen if we read every text individually; and read it not as a text that claims some magical status, but as an anthology of literature? I argue that people could not longer say, "Ha! See here, a contradiction, the whole damn thing is a lie."

I don't see a point in letting the tail wag the dog. What the actual argument is - credibility - rather than what labels we attach.

Whether it is supposed that it was authored by one divine being (though written by different hands) then it fails because it is wrong, invalid and contradictory. If it was written by a lot of different persons, then the same thing applies. Inerrancy fails, whether one means absolute perfection or true, even though it has no credible validity.

The same applies even when considering the intent, motivation and agenda of the authors. While I certainly consider the intent of the authors of Genesis and Exodus, of the gospels -writers and indeed of Paul in his own letters, that, while worth considering, is supplemental to the basics - that it does not stack up to a credible Book, story or doctrine.

'The whole damn' thing is a lie', and I have said as much and for good reasons, whether one considers how and why it was written or not.