Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

[oenophile]

I hope it works this time.

I hope it works this time.

Yes!!!!!!!!

[waterbuffalo]

I'm not sure what I think, am willing to dialogue, but chose "other."

What do you think, Oeno?

Edited July 10, 2008 by waterbuffalo

[cake]

Polls are tricky things. I chose the "other" option because there was not an option for what I was thinking -- this isn't to knock the poll: I think that there are really too many permutations unless you confine the choices to a strictly binary "Yes or No", which wouldn't represent most folks' thinking.

Edited July 10, 2008 by cake

[Yanagisawa]

The "inerrancy doctrine" is a great, fairly new invention that, thankfully, takes the burden off me to think and holistically apply scripture to my life. And thank goodness. It really fits my culture of prefab housing, processed ready-made food, and conveyer belt education. I'm sure glad I have to do is open the book, point to a verse and know that the God of the Universe wrote it (using someone's hand of course.)

I don't have to check it against history, science, culture, or similar literary genre. which is so neat because I'm so tired of thinking critically. Don't you think there's already too much criticism in the world?

I can just read it like a Hallmark card because its God's perfectly inspired, perfectly written love letter to me.

[oenophile]

I got the idea for the poll whilst looking at a weed (not cannabis) and thinking would the whole Bible fall apart if scientists found a fossilized specimen of a thorny plant that could be accurately dated to be over 100,000 years old.

WB, Cake and Yangi. Please feel free to expound on your "other" positions.

[waysider]

I found a typo in my Cambridge once.

Does that count?

[brideofjc]

I found a typo in my Cambridge once.

Does that count?

Did you cover it in black, carry it out for the ceremonial burning?

[George Aar]

I find it quite remarkable that there's still so many (especially in The States) that subscribe to the concept.

There's really nothing all that unique about "The Bible", other than the fact that it represented the religion of choice of the people who ended up in charge of things (for the most part).

There's certainly no shortage of "holy" writs with claims of infallibility (and associated dire warnings for those who don't accept the doctrine). And there's nothing all that remarkable about the contents of The Bible either. The basic story line of the N.T. was getting pretty shopworn from overuse, even in biblical times. The virgin birth, the "Christ" uber-human figure, dietary restrictions, miraculous healings, and the all-seeing benevolent - or sometimes MALevolent - omniscient God, and the various and sundry morality tales were all used repeatedly in other cultures and religions. I guess there were maybe 16 or so "christs" BEFORE the time of the (quite possibly fictitious) one that we revere today.

And then there's all the palpable error contained in The Bible. Rabbits the chew the cud, dragons, giants, boats that circumnavigate the globe but physics says couldn't even hold themselves together, the value of Pi, and on and on.

I honestly think that, had we not been given an incredibly forceful a-priori belief at a very early age that there was something really special about The Bible , we wouldn't give any of it a second thought today - if we even knew of it's existence. I think the reverence and abject obeisance to it is stark evidence of the power of a "meme".

[Juan Cruz]

"inerrancy" is applying proudful human analysis to sacred writings...

tacky: a little like asking the president's wife how much she weighs.

As if we had some standing with which to judge the judge.

I'd no more try to pigeon hole scripture than I would try to make a case that Asian women are more (or less sexy) than African women. If she turns you on, she's sexy. Likewise, if these words turn you on... you've gotten lucky.

Inerrant? My wife is inerrant (yet she makes mistakes sometimes).

Inerrant: gee, does it SAY itself is inerrant?

Yes, it's inerrant; now waste time defending that... if it's inerrant, it tells us no more than it does if it's not inerrant - just the defining message of our life. "Honey, are you beautiful?"

Inerrant?: would you respect it less if it didn't meet up to the standard you use for lab experiments? reliability, validity, statistical significance? You, Philistine.

People who seek inerrancy: Are these the same people who would rather have a younger spouse - just because he/she is younger?

I will allow myself to think about inerrancy for a minute -- for every lifetime I let scripture be the soul, thought and heart language I use to communicate with and follow One who stood beside the blue Galilean Sea, and gathered common folk like myself to his side, that I might follow him down life's dusty roads.

Inerrancy, schimerrancy! I oughta clobber you! You want I should bop you over the head with this here keyboard?

Inerrancy! sheesh...

Paw ought to have automatic censoring of such a word. Poph, and pididdle. Inerrancy would be subsitited for by the word "intriguing." (*ss becomes 'foot' right?)

inerrant... if you want inerrancy, stick to 10th grade geometry - don't go to the 12th floor of the Courant Institute where I once discussed number in scripture with a famous and orthodox Jewish mathematician. You'll depress him.. I'm sure I did. He probably went to the shiny, chrome gilt men's room to wash his hands of me after i had slunk away with my 'B.'

Everyone who bothers to care about a word called ine**ancy....

Get down on your knees and ask forgiveness for such presumption.

oeophile, this is not directed to you personally - however, if you needed to hear it.... glad I could help.

[oenophile]

Inerrancy, schimerrancy! I oughta clobber you! You want I should bop you over the head with this here keyboard?

Inerrancy! sheesh...

oeophile, this is not directed to you personally - however, if you needed to hear it.... glad I could help.

:)

Edited July 14, 2008 by oenophile

[Juan Cruz]

:)

Gee, even George didn't get THAT answer! lol

guess i deserved it

George, the historical Jesus may not have recognized the Jesus of the gospels..

"Wow, kewl! Where can I meet this guy who has the same name as me?"

But, "Fictitious" is in the heart of the believer - or disbeliever, as the case may be.

The Jesus who lives in my heart is closer to the one in the gospels than the historical one...

though I like them both...

I LOVE the one that walks with me day by day

O dear Lord, three things I pray...

(can you remember what they are?)

further reading: Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography John Dominic Crossan (reader beware) Amazon page for this book

[waterbuffalo]

Interesting article about John Lennon's views on Christianity...

I remember when this came out and wondered if he really believed in Christ or if he was simply trying to deflect the negative publicity about his bigger than Christ statement. In any event, he makes some good points that I don't disagree with about churches...

John Lennon's interview on Christianity

Edited July 14, 2008 by waterbuffalo

[George Aar]

Ummm, lemmee see,

"day by day, day by day, blah blah blah,

see thee more clearly

love thee more dearly

follow thee more nearly,

day by day"

Wasn't that a "Yardbirds" hit? (maybe it was "The Four Tops")...

[mstar1]

No inerrancy for me,

I think there is a lot of archetypical people, situations and wisdom in the bible that is a part of, and practical toward any life, without over reverencing every comma, or getting lost in the oceans of religious stew and hyperbole that surrounds it

Whether there was an actual historical Jesus or he is a composite of figures and stories (like Robin Hood) Im not really sure,

but The messages repeat over and over throughout history.

(maybe it was "The Four Tops")

:)

Maybe it was,

If Jesus had lived in Detroit in the 60's, he may had this message..

FOUR TOPS VIDEO

Now if you feel that you can't go on

Because all of your hope is gone

And your life is filled with much confusion

Until happiness is just an illusion

And your world around is crumbling down,

(Reach out)

(Reach out) reach out for me

I'll be there with a love that will shelter you

I'll be there with a love that will see you through

When you feel lost and about to give up

Cause your life just ain't good enough

And your feel the world has grown cold

And your drifting out all on your own

And you need a hand to hold,

(Reach out)

(Reach out) reach out for me

I'll be there to love and comfort you

And I'll be there to cherish and care for you

To me its the same message.

Dont get me wrong, Jesus said some great things but I wouldnt argue over bible inerrancy anymore than I would the inerrancy of The Four Tops.

Fighting over commas and dates misses the entire point

Edited July 15, 2008 by mstar1

[cake]

I'll clarify my reply here. Biblical inerrancy is the thought that the bible in its original form is free of error and contradiction and is totally accurate. My opinion of this is, categorically, "please". Since there are no original manuscripts anywhere, it's very easy to say anything anyone likes, really: playing an eternal game of Schroedinger's Cat, only there's no way to open the box and verify the state of the cat.

[lindyhopper]

I would say no. In part because grasshoppers have six legs not four, but for many reasons.

Mmmm cake. Sorry, what were we talking about.

[geisha779]

yes and no

This says it best for me.

"Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to be justified in our belief about that something, and to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer no.

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements, there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge."

I do believe we can know absolute truth in the person of Jesus Christ. We are still without excuse.

Inerrancy--yes and no---wrong argument IMHO

[Mister P-Mosh]

Dont get me wrong, Jesus said some great things but I wouldnt argue over bible inerrancy anymore than I would the inerrancy of The Four Tops.

So in your opinion, Jesus is just alright?

[Juan Cruz]

Wasn't that a "Yardbirds" hit? (maybe it was "The Four Tops")...

Yardbirds: "Love is but a Song We Sing"

what's all this with the Four Tops?

This Prayer was in Godspell. Originally: Richard of Chichester -very old

If you're not good, George, we'll make you watch it 4 times in a row.

[penworks]

I find it quite remarkable that there's still so many (especially in The States) that subscribe to the concept.

...

I honestly think that, had we not been given an incredibly forceful a-priori belief at a very early age that there was something really special about The Bible , we wouldn't give any of it a second thought today - if we even knew of it's existence. I think the reverence and abject obeisance to it is stark evidence of the power of a "meme".

Well said, George. And IMO it's quite correct that the poll question frames inerrancy as a "belief." Beliefs can often NOT be proven. Beliefs are powerful, though, as we know from our own experiences in twi.

Anyhow, any good book on the history of the N.T. texts (and Hebrew Bible) describes how and when the canon was formed. It does not seem clear that inerrancy was a claim they made back then - they just figured those documents were inspired and authored by either the original apostles or disciples who were followers of the original apostles. Nor did they think the books were historically "correct" as far as I can find out.

There's much scholarly doubt today that Paul wrote all the N.T. books that are ascribed to him, i.e. I and II Timothy and Titus were NOT written by him, and II Peter was not written by the apostle Peter, etc. There's a lot more of that info out there...

Seems to me that inerrancy is farcical. About 20 years ago I never dreamed I'd ever think this!!!

[Twinky]

A lot of archaeological data does not align with the chronology of the Bible either. Nor do "documentary records" that exist in other contemporary cultures.

Does that make the Bible untrue? In error rather than inerrant?

Maybe in some things our all-too-finite understanding are lacking. Once people believed that this planet was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it, quite literally. This was based on their Biblical understanding. It was also believed that the Earth was completely flat and there was an "edge" some place that might be fallen off. Yet that does not negate the fact that this round planet is actually here and so far as we are currently aware is the only planet capable of supporting life (as we know it). And the further study now available means that anyone holding to those old beliefs today would be laughed at.

Rather than looking at the Bible as an inerrant [historical] record, we really have to face up to it being, in fact, not being wholly accurate. That leaves us free to examine the truth or otherwise of what we might call "the heart behind the words". Larger truths, not myths, folklore, or misattributions. Some events are compressed or symbolic. In the same way that a good historical novel can bring life to the bare facts of a period of time, so the Bible can bring "life" to the lives of people in and through whom God worked.

If you've prayed for and seen the power of God at work - you know that there's something there. This planet and we ourselves aren't just some cosmic accident. We need to understand God and the Bible bigger, wider, and deeper.

{For the avoidance of doubt: I am not saying that the Bible is fiction!)

edited for grammar

Edited July 16, 2008 by Twinky

[Yanagisawa]

A thought from Eugene Peterson:

"Inerrancy, as commonly defined, does irreversible violence to the literary genres of the Bible..

[inerrancy} stands squarely on the view that the Bible is a collection of propositions, i.e. verses.

It is a recent innovation, appearing in none of the Reformation confessions.

The Bible's descriptions of truth are rich and diverse.

Inerrancy is a concept that has to be footnoted in too many ways to be useful."

[Cynic]

The short answer:

Yes.

A longer answer by J. I. Packer:

[From J. I. Packer’s essay, “Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics, and Inerrancy,” in Jerusalem and Athens (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1971), reproduced in electronic format on the compact disc, “The Works of Cornelius Van Til.”]

How does all this relate to the question of the inerrancy of Scripture? The concept has come under heavy fire in recent years, from professed evangelicals no less than from others. It has been dismissed as speculative, unnecessary, and unprofitable. It has been attacked as viciously rationalistic . . .

Inerrancy is a word that has been in common use since only the last century, though the idea itself goes back through seventeenth century orthodoxy, the Reformers and the Schoolmen, to the Fathers, and, behind them, to our Lord’s own statements, “the scriptures cannot be broken,” “thy word is truth” (Jn 10:35; 17:17). The word has a negative form and a positive function . . . The idea it expresses—namely, that all Scripture assertions are true and trustworthy in all that they assert—is not a speculation, but is directly entailed by the fact of inspiration . . . What it expresses is not an irreligious interest in “proving the Bible” but a retention of reverence for the sacred text which some were irreverently expounding as if it were in places self-contradictory and false. To assert biblical inerrancy is not, however, to prejudge any questions about the literary genre, range, and content of particular biblical passages; these things must in every case be determined inductively and a posteriori, by grammatico-historical exegesis. The assertion, in other words, does not function as an exegetical short cut! Nor does it imply a blanket claim to have up one’s sleeve a convincing solution, here and now, of all puzzling biblical phenomena of detail, or an expectation of not having to leave any of these problems open as one advances in one’s earthly pilgrimage of Bible study. He who asserts inerrancy with understanding expects, rather, to have to live with such problems all his days, perhaps in quite acute form, simply because he will not settle for anything less than a convincing harmonization, and declines to cut any knots by saying flatly that the Bible errs.

Edited July 17, 2008 by Cynic

[Ham]

doesn't hurt much, to think , that is..

[oenophile]

yes and no

This says it best for me.

"Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?

Geisha, your post does add considerable intellectual weight to the argument. I would like you to reconsider the question, "Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?" Belief, unlike knowing in the Cartesian sense, does not require tedious mathematical proofs and syllogistical arguments.

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to be justified in our belief about that something, and to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer no.

How about the converse argument? Are we unjustified in our disbelief of certain biblical narratives (Genesis Creation, the Flood) when they are contradicted by mounting empirical evidence?

I do believe we can know absolute truth in the person of Jesus Christ. We are still without excuse.

I must say that I believe that too. Yet, if we have evidence that our earliest human relatives bones were found in Africa and not in the biblical Garden of Eden (southern Iraq), that if the world's tectonic plates moved at such speed to place the continents where they are now the resulting devastation from earthquakes, volcanism and tsunamis would have done us in like the dinosaurs and the arguments that Creationists can make are becoming fewer and fewer...what does that portend for the biblical proposition that there was an Original Sin by one man that had to be expunged by a Redeemer?