Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

Post by **otseng** » Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:54 pm

Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?

Also up for discussion is what is meant by the Bible and inerrancy.

As is the case for all debates in TD&D, it is assumed the Bible is authoritative and is not up for debate.

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Sat Nov 09, 2019 6:51 pm

JW posted:

Why, in your opinion, is there no record of Jesus having a hard discussion, even in private with his Apostles on the possibility that there were errors in said copies? Could it be that whatever "errors" may have been present, would have been minor (spelling variations, alternative phraseology ect) and ultimately insignificant ?

RESPONSE: Perhaps it had something to do with Jesus dying 40 - 65 years before the first words of the New Testament were even written. How can Jesus dispute a writing that will not be made for about 40 years or longer after his death?

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:47 pm

Avoice wrote: [Replying to post 129 by onewithhim]

Well sure it would make a difference. What about trying to say that he was in the tomb the sane as the sane amount if time Jonah was in the whale. Two nights three days? Three night? Yeah it makes a difference. Becsuse the gospels disagree

WHAT difference does it really make, when we consider the MAIN message of the Gospels? None.

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:49 pm

Avoice wrote: There are many errors in translations of the. Most are frivolous. Its the ones that change the message which are a crime and inexcusable. No excuse for omitting words.

Yes. How do the words about Jesus and Jonah "change the message"? What is the message? That Jesus will be dead in the tomb for three days or parts thereof. Then he will come back to life. What about this message changes with how many nights he would be dead?

onewithhim · Post by **onewithhim** » Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:13 pm

Folks, correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone zipped right past my comments in posts # 92, 95, 96-98 as if I hadn't said anything. I thought my arguments about authoritativeness even though not inerrant were pretty sensible. Were my comments too complicated?

I would appreciate some response to them.

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:06 pm

onewithGod posted:

I have to be completely honest about what I think. And I do not think that God would approve of what is apparently written in Exodus 21:21. Sorry, folks, that's what I believe. I think it is a case of Moses embellishing something with his own idea. It contradicts everything else in the Scriptures concerning Jehovah's profound love for every human being. I think Moses had a habit of doing this embellishment fairly often. How does Exodus 4:25,26 have anything to do with anything important for us to know? There is no one anywhere that has a definitive answer for why this is in the Bible.

RESPONSE: I do. It makes for a dramatic story even if not written by God. And apparently Moses didn't write it either even assuming that Moses existed.

"There is no historical evidence outside of the Bible, no mention of Moses outside the Bible, and no independent confirmation that Moses ever existed."
â€”Dr. Michael D. Coogan, lecturer on the Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School

One has to learn to distinguish between historical fact and blatant fiction in "scripture."

Post by **otseng** » Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:21 pm

onewithhim wrote: Folks, correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone zipped right past my comments in posts # 92, 95, 96-98 as if I hadn't said anything.

I'll post my thoughts...

onewithhim wrote: I personally don't think that anything written down by humans will be totally error-free. I think that they can get the main thought and the very important details right, but there are some things that will be exaggerated, embellished, or missed (being picked up, usually, by someone else).

I agree with this.

onewithhim wrote: So, to conclude, the Bible can be somewhat "errant" in ways, but still be authoritative.

Honestly, I have no idea what John is saying in Revelation. But I agree with your concluding statement.

onewithhim wrote: I do not defend Exodus 21:21. However, the whole idea of "slavery" was very different than what we know of slavery today. I think that a few people here have explained this idea of slavery fairly well, if we were to go back and review what has been said. Jehovah gave instructions for the kind treatment of "slaves," or, employees of that day.

The topic of slavery is complex. I do not think it's as simple as saying either it is acceptable or not acceptable. But, that's for another thread to discuss.

Eloi · Post by **Eloi** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:56 pm

Focusing myself in the first post: The Bible to be inerrant is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ... because it is the only way we can be sure that what is said everywhere in there is totally truth.

If we think the Bible as containing any kind of originally written error, then it is impossible to talk about the Bible as an AUTHORITY ...

I'll tell this in another way: suppose the text X has an error and that error will give an idea Y. Obviously if we think that the Bible is authoritative we will teach Y as a truth coming from the Bible, since it is coming from X in the Bible ... but if we teach Y and X is an error, we are teaching errors based on the Bible and telling people that the Word of God is not reliable ... so, we could not use the Bible at all, since any text A, B, C, etc, could be other errors.

There can not be a single error originally written in the Bible for the Bible to be really AUTHORITATIVE. The truth can not be learned or taught from a book that is not considered to be without errors.

PinSeeker · Post by **PinSeeker** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:36 pm

Eloi wrote: Focusing myself in the first post: The Bible to be inerrant is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ... because it is the only way we can be sure that what is said everywhere in there is totally truth.

If we think the Bible as containing any kind of originally written error, then it is impossible to talk about the Bible as an AUTHORITY ...

I'll tell this in another way: suppose the text X has an error and that error will give an idea Y. Obviously if we think that the Bible is authoritative we will teach Y as a truth coming from the Bible, since it is coming from X in the Bible ... but if we teach Y and X is an error, we are teaching errors based on the Bible and telling people that the Word of God is not reliable ... so, we could not use the Bible at all, since any text A, B, C, etc, could be other errors.

There can not be a single error originally written in the Bible for the Bible to be really AUTHORITATIVE. The truth can not be learned or taught from a book that is not considered to be without errors.

Agreed... all except for the last sentence. I would say the truth can be learned even if it is considered to contain errors. Accepting the truth as the truth it is is a different matter. Once the truth is learned, that truth may or may not be accepted as truth by the learner; it may still be rejected (denied in unrighteousness, in Paul's words from Romans 1). The learner will only come to accept it as truth if God first works saving faith in that learner -- via his inward call and the work of His Holy Spirit -- and causes the learner to be born again, thereby changing the heart and giving the learner new life in Christ.

Grace and peace to you all.

polonius · Post by **polonius** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:13 pm

Eloi wrote: Focusing myself in the first post: The Bible to be inerrant is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ... because it is the only way we can be sure that what is said everywhere in there is totally truth.

If we think the Bible as containing any kind of originally written error, then it is impossible to talk about the Bible as an AUTHORITY ...

I'll tell this in another way: suppose the text X has an error and that error will give an idea Y. Obviously if we think that the Bible is authoritative we will teach Y as a truth coming from the Bible, since it is coming from X in the Bible ... but if we teach Y and X is an error, we are teaching errors based on the Bible and telling people that the Word of God is not reliable ... so, we could not use the Bible at all, since any text A, B, C, etc, could be other errors.

There can not be a single error originally written in the Bible for the Bible to be really AUTHORITATIVE. The truth can not be learned or taught from a book that is not considered to be without errors.

RESPONSE:

Let's begin with the first biblical contradiction.

Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod the Great who died in 4 BC.

Luke says Jesus was born during the (6AD) Roman census of Judea.

A ten year difference. So, logically Mary had two sons named Jesus born ten (10) ears apart.

Question: How many animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem (one or two)?

Post by **otseng** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:31 pm

Eloi wrote: Focusing myself in the first post: The Bible to be inerrant is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ... because it is the only way we can be sure that what is said everywhere in there is totally truth.

It's best if we don't have to rehash the past 17 pages. Can you at least read through the thread? And then we can debate your position.