Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?

[otseng]

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.

[otseng]

When you say "the bible" I take it you mean the copies of the bible (rather than the original inspired writings). With that I agree, the copies (and various translations) of the bible just have to reflect the evidence based knowledge of of the available manuscripts and languages at the time they are produced, in short follow solid principles of translation.

When the average Christian refers to the Bible, they are referring to the translations. It's meaningless to say our English translations are inerrant because the vast majority of definitions of inerrancy refer to the autographs, not translations. One of the most commonly accepted view of inerrancy would be the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy. It explicitly states it refers to the autographs, not translations.

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/them ... inerrancy/

So, what does that mean for our English translations? Does it mean they are not inerrant? Are the English Bibles we read errant?

What this reveals is that the concept of inerrancy is misleading. It's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" The question itself is meaningless because it presents a false dilemma. Same with the concept of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy is misleading and doesn't really answer the fundamental question if the Bible is reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative.

[JehovahsWitness]

When the average Christian refers to the Bible, they are referring to the translations.

For anyone that is in fact referring to "translations" (rather than the original text) I do not believe it is true to say "translations" are inerrant.

... the vast majority of definitions of inerrancy refer to the autographs, not translations..

If by "autographs" this refers to the original manuscripts of the biblical texts as written by the original authors, then no I DO the bible (as in the original manuscripts) to be inerrant.

So, what does that mean for our English translations? Does it mean they are not inerrant? Are the English Bibles we read errant?

No, I don't believe any translation can be spoken of as "inerrant". The notion of "inerrant translation" traps us in 1611.

[otseng]

Nobody is asking you to say " our English translations are inerrant", I am just clarifying for the sake of this discussion exactly what we are talking about.

I'm assuming you mean errant. But it's not just me that could reach this conclusion, but anybody could.

1. Only autographs are inerrant.
2. English translations are not autographs.

Thus English translations are not inerrant.
Therefore English translation are errant.

[JehovahsWitness]

Thus English translations are not inerrant.
Therefore English translation are errant.

If I may refer to chatgpt, I think its input is relevant here...

QUESTION if one accepts that something is not inerrant does that necessarily mean it is errant?

Not necessarily. If something is not inerrant, it simply means it is not completely free from error. However, that does not automatically mean it is errant, in the sense of being full of errors or fundamentally flawed.

For example, a book that is not inerrant might contain minor mistakes but still be largely reliable. Similarly, a person who is not infallible isn't necessarily always wrong—they just aren't guaranteed to be right.

So, while rejecting inerrancy means acknowledging the possibility of errors, it does not necessarily mean embracing errancy as a defining characteristic.

So my position as one of Jehovah's Witness is that the original autographs were inerrant but that subsequent copies may contain minor errors which nevertheless does not support classifying them as errant.

Jehovah's Witness OFFICIAL statement viewtopic.php?p=985868#p985868

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[otseng]

a book that is not inerrant might contain minor mistakes but still be largely reliable.

That is why I prefer descriptions such as reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative, since that is the main meaning we're trying to communicate. Minor mistakes can still be classified as errant. But as mentioned above, even if something is errant, it can still be largely reliable.

[JehovahsWitness]

a book that is not inerrant might contain minor mistakes but still be largely reliable.

That is why I prefer descriptions such as reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative, since that is the main meaning we're trying to communicate. Minor mistakes can still be classified as errant. But as mentioned above, even if something is errant, it can still be largely reliable.

Indeed, while the bible (the original script) is inerrant, the translations and copies thereof are best described as "largely reliable" (to classify all existing copies and translations as "errant" would be misleading).

As an active religious minister, I make the distinction between the original script (the word of God) and subsequent copies (manuscripts and translations) clear because people essentially want to know if what they hold in their hand is divinely inspired and trustworthy or historical fiction which as been corrupted over time.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[lifelongseeker]

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

I hope not. Our OT was produced by Masorete Jews 1000 years after Christ called them sons of Satan.
Jeremiah 8:8 

Our NT is pseudepigraphical (forgery) manuscripts written 300 years after Christ.