Is the Bible inerrant or not to be taken seriously?

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? If so, what do you mean by it being inerrant? If not, why do you believe that it is not inerrant?

I thought this would make an interesting topic for discussion.

 

The best answer I can think of for this question is to refer you to read a book called "The Case for Christ." It was written by a man who was an athiest who initially set out to disprove the Bible. He lays all of the known evidence out, just as a lawyer would, and lets you make your own decision.

 

Unfortunately that was one of most poorly written books I have ever come acrossed. It was very disappointing. Religion is built upon faith and belief. Suggesting you can prove it, sets an author up for failure. Beyond that Stobel merely presented one side of the case in a very biased and uninspired way.

 

I think that overstates the case a bit; I'll acknowledge that it's not the perfect example of "unbiased" reporting on Strobel's part, but of course, he did not set out to present an unbiased account, he set out to persuade--the title should indicate that clearly. Obviously, you were not persuaded, but that does not mean that others did not find some points compelling. I think in any event you're being disingenuous to refer to it as "one of most poorly written books I have ever come acrossed [sic]"--it wasn't that poorly written. A better book is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. And before you google it and pull some review off some narrow-focus biased site like infidel.com or the like, why don't you actually pick it up and read it cover-to-cover?

 

I think that's a false dichotomy. Personally, I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant, but I do think that it should be taken seriously.

I don't believe that it is, but I'll answer anyway, since one should be clear about what he's denying.

I conceive 'Biblical inerrancy' to mean that the Bible is necessarily correct whenever it makes a factual claim. If the findings of secular history or science contradict something that's written in the Bible, then too bad for history or science. Worldly opinion can not stand against God's truth. The Bible can contain no errors.

Similar but weaker claims can be made about the Bible. For example, the Bible can be declared infallible for matters of faith. In other words, it can be said to contain everything that's necessary for salvation. But that infallibility in guiding souls needn't mean that the Bible is necessarily correct on all matters of science or even history.

I'm using 'inerrant' in my strong sense above. Why do I reject it?

First of all, it's a very strong and exotic claim. Inerrancy seems to be true of no other written text in human experience. I find it inherently more credible to treat the Bible as all other human writings are treated, than to assign it to a unique category of supernatural texts.

Second, convincing intelligent doubters that the Bible belongs in a unique category where error is absolutely impossible obviously requires elaborate argument. I have yet to see any arguments for Biblical inerrancy that are persuasive.

Finally, I think that the Bible contains a number of passages that might be best treated by not taking them literally.

 

Hi Mrw142

I believe faith is a very powerful and valuable part of life. BUT, it really is built upon belief. "The Case for Christ" suggest that it is built upon facts and proof.

All Strobel does is present the biased opinions of various people. There is no clear examination or even use of basic scientific method. By doing so Strobel does a great disservice to Christianity.

Could someone be convinced by poor logic and inaccurate "evidence"? Sure, but where is the victory in that? I think many more turn away from Christianity due to lack of truth and accuracy in this book.

As to C.S. Lewis, I 've never read it. I will when I have a chance. I hope isn't full of hyperbole like Strobel's work.

 

Again, not an unbiased account, but lack of accuracy? I read it and I didn't see it. Faith is ultimately a matter--of course--of faith, but that's not to say the Bible doesn't have numerous "facts and proof" supporting it, and Strobel pointed some of these out.

I'll give you one example (cannot recall if Strobel directly references): the Bible tells us that civilization started in Northern Iraq near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers approximately 6,000-7,000 years ago. This coincides precisely with what archeologists now have discovered--they call it the "Explosion of Civilization"--and date it and place it precisely where the Bible has it--that book written by a group of nomadic ex-slaves wandering about Northern Africa and the Middle East some 3,500 years ago--do you think they had a reference library handy? Did they have the benefit of modern archeological discovery? Did they have anything? Remarkably lucky guess on their part--or was it?

 

I am unclear what you believe that is proof of? To me, it suggests what we call the Bible is composed of many accounts that contain many elements of history, wisdom, etc.

If you are suggesting God or Christ can be factually proven, you are also saying it isn't faith based. I've never seen any one pull that off, but it would be interesting if some one could.

 

P.S. To answer the question asked in the original post, I think the Bible is both to be taken seriously and is clearly profound. It is also clear it isn't inerrant. (is that a double negative?)

 

No, I'm not saying that the God of Christ can be put into a test tube and subjected to the scientific method. I am an attorney, however, and I'm familiar with other levels of proof, such as "preponderance of the evidence", "clear and convincing evidence", and "beyond a reasonable doubt"--and I can state that I have seen people convicted of crimes by the highest standards on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.

When I tell you about something that should astonish--namely, that a very primitive group without a college degree or a jot of archaelogical experience among them should manage to fashion an account of the dawn of civilization that matches precisely modern accounts, understandings we've only come to in recent centuries, it should at least intrigue you and make you wonder what exactly was going on there. It should--in short--be a piece of very compelling evidence in that circumstantial chain leading to faith in the God of the Bible. I'm not suggesting that one piece of evidence proves the whole thing, I never claimed as much. However, I, or at the very least others who have far more expertise in this area than me, could go on citing such bits of evidence until you wearied of hearing them.

Faith is not about proof in a scientific manner; the ancients didn't even have a concept of the scientific method, that's a product primarily of the Enlightenment--fairly modern. But the ancient Jews in any event put together a series of writings that should astonish both for their literacy--given their want of education--and their historical veracity--given their want of data on the matter.

 

Hi Mrw142

The Bible, God, and Christ do intrigue and astonish me. That should not convince me a whole thoery of religion is true because one point may be true.

I don't think of Jewish civilization as primitive even at the time of Christ. They had a history of 100s of years even at that point. Their history was an oral one that became written. Is it surprising to you that the Torah has factually correct history within it?

Many interpret the Bible as saying the world is only 7000-8,000 years old. Clearly that has been proven false. That doesn't mean either the Bible or Christianity is wrong.

As to the idea of proving something based on circumstantial evidence, that is very scary to me. That is how innocent people are put to death and guilty men go free.

I totally agree with you about religion being based on faith. Those who suggest otherwise seem to lack a clear understanding of the very subject.

 

Remember, as for circumstantial evidence, it's often all we have, and it can be extremely compelling. Direct evidence is often not available. If you required that there were direct, irrefutable eyewitnesses to a crime before you could convict, criminals would roam the streets with impunity, Malvo and Muhammad might still be shooting up the Beltway. If an investigator can lift your prints from a gun, the gun is registered to you, it is shown to have been used to kill your rival whose body is found buried in your backyard and you had motive and opportunity for a crime, gave a patently false and fantastic alibi when questioned, and were seen to have threatened to do away with him, I think few juries would have trouble convicting you upon circumstantial evidence alone.

The Jews were not primitive at the time of Christ, but they were 1300 or so years before while they roamed as nomads, exiles from Egypt--and that is when the creation story was composed. It was passed down by oral tradition with extreme care for a few hundred years and written down about 1000 b.c. I think what you're saying is that Jewish oral tradition was what stretched back to those ancient accounts of the dawn of civilization, but Jewish history only goes back to Abraham, less than 4,000 years ago--still thousands of years removed from the ancient accounts that they describe. The data, to my knowledge, just wasn't there, at least not with the level of precision with which they recounted it.

I appreciate the interchange, and of course, faith is not provable like scientific data--but that by no means implies that it does not have some very strong--I'd say overwhelming--evidence on its side.

 

As a Jew, I take the not uncommon position that the Hebrew Bible is entirely the work of a series of men (and maybe a woman or two) that expresses the history and wisdom of the Jewish people. I don't for a moment believe that there was anything divine about any part of it.

But.

There IS something that I call the "still small voice", also translatable as the "fine silence" in my heart that I cannot deny. If that still small voice prompted those that wrote the texts eventually assembled as the Bible, then perhaps, in a way that I cannot explain, and certainly cannot justify, the Bible reflects the common experience of these people through the centuries.

I can't go farther than that but I can't go less far either.

 

Check into the resources I've provided you on other posts--might persuade you to go farther.

 

Hi Mrw142

I do reject circumstantial evidence as proof of something. If your suggesting it can point in a direction I wouldn't argue with that UNLESS you reject equally convincing evidence against your point. Obviously that would be illogical.

As to the Jewish Oral tradition, I was pointing out that the accounts later assembled into the Torah and Bible were built upon a long tradition. It isn't surprising in the least that they have parts that are historically provable.

You keep suggest the Bible has strong evidence that it is irrefutable and that there is strong proof of that. I hope that evidence is much stronger than that found in "The Case for Christ" as that was a very weak and often illogical book. Like I wrote before, that was the most poorly written and argued book I have ever read. Bearly acceptable when preaching to the choir, much less when looking for accurate and logical evidence.

 

With deepest respect, mrw, I long ago considered the Christian message and rejected it root and branch.

This is NOT meant as any sort of criticism of you or any other believer. But I am not "virgin missionary terrirory."

 

Why did you reject it root and branch?

 

I'll drop the argument over Strobel, it's not a hill I want to die on, but I still think you're talking extreme hyperbole. The most poorly written and argued you've ever read? You have been sheltered from all but the very best books then, as I read that same book, and I'd rank it somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

I'm frankly a bit nonplussed here. You keep going back to: "It's not surprising the Bible has some historical stuff in it"--so then tell me, from where did the nomads get that info that no other great civilization with all their libraries and all their knowledge seemed to have? How is it that we're talking past each other so completely?

As for you standards re: proof--did you by chance sit on the O.J. jury?--just having fun with you!

 

I think Yahweh might differ with this (non-IRAC, conclusory) analysis....

 

It's the killin' part that is the problem...

And so are myths and fairy stories.... Where is the evidence, hard physical evidence, that any of this religious stuff is true?

Sure, it is great to have a moral guidebook, and many of the things that the world's religions teach are good for mankind. I guess it is the parts that tell us to kill members of other religions or those who stray from our own religion that I have a problem with. One can find ample evidence for these "holy commands" in both the Koran and the Bible (primarily Old Testament).