"The Bible: Errancy, Inerrancy or Something in Between?"

C Mc

1. Define the two basic terms.
2. What is the history of each? What necessitates this division?
3. Who or what religious body support Errancy or Inerrancy?
4. Is one side completely wrong? Is there a middle ground?
5. Where are the conservatives, Evangelicals, Liberals on the subject matter?
6. What is the popular or the most accepted view or understanding today?
7. Is it translations or declaration that caused some to see the Bible as Errant or Inerrant?

Please share your view with respect and clarity. CM

C Mc

To get started, here is a little background or introduction to the topic:

There are two major views of the nature of the Bible. They are known as “biblical errancy,” that is, “the Bible is full of errors,” and “biblical inerrancy,” that is, “the Bible is free from errors.”

Biblical errancy is the view of liberal critics who maintain that the Bible is a strictly human, error-ridden book, devoid of supernatural revelations and miraculous manifestations. Consequently, the Old and New Testaments are strictly human literary productions that partake of the shortcomings of their human authors.

By contrast, conservative evangelicals believe in the total inerrancy of the Bible. They affirm that the Bible is absolutely inerrant, that is, without error in its original manuscripts. For some, the inerrancy of the Bible extends to every reference to history, geography, chronology, cosmology, and science.

Could it be that both views are flawed? CM

Bill_Coley

@C_M_ said:
There are two major views of the nature of the Bible. They are known as “biblical errancy,” that is, “the Bible is full of errors,” and “biblical inerrancy,” that is, “the Bible is free from errors.”
Could it be that both views are flawed? CM

Could it be there are more than two views?

I assure you, CM, there are alternatives to a Bible that's inerrant other than a Bible that's "full of errors," and a "strictly human, error-ridden book, devoid of supernatural revelations."

May I suggest that a more respectful approach to reporting options along the inerrancy continuum would be first to allow CD participants to define their own points of view, and THEN to endeavor to summarize the posted views accurately. Such a process would generate a more complete picture of the continuum and allow participants to characterize their views in their own terms, without having first to disassociate themselves from inflammatory language such as "full of errors."

C Mc

@Bill_Coley said:

May I suggest that a more respectful approach to reporting options along the inerrancy continuum would be first to allow CD participants to define their own points of view, and THEN to endeavor to summarize the posted views accurately. Such a process would generate a more complete picture of the continuum and allow participants to characterize their views in their own terms, without having first to disassociate themselves from inflammatory language such as "full of errors."

Bill, speak to your heart is contented. Make your case. This is why this thread was created. If you think my beginning is too burdensome and contain "inflammatory language such as "full of errors'"; by all means, start a new thread and make your case. Nothing ever stopped you before.

You appear to be a skilled writer and "debater", do your thing here or create your own thread. "Don't make a mountain out of a molehill", by saying I should "allow CD participants to define their own points of view, and THEN to endeavor to summarize the posted views accurately." Come, on Bill, stop cursing the dark and light a candle and express yourself. START A NEW TREAD ON THE TOPIC!

The last time I checked, you (and everyone else) were totally free to:
1. Read and respond.
2. Answer a question.
3. Respond with facts, opinions, quotes, texts references, etc.
4. Answer some questions, all questions or none at all.
5. Or read, and say nothing.

Is not these forums are opened? Please, Bill, don't make me the scapegoat for your unwillingness to engage the subject. Exercise your options, but spare me; I am not the jailer of these forums.

Lastly, "may I suggest that a more respectful approach to reporting options along the inerrancy continuum would be first to allow CD participants, let [CM] make his contributions to the conversation" to define HIS own points of view, and THEN to endeavor to summarize the posted HIS views accurately?" "Such a process would generate a more complete picture of the continuum and allow participants to characterize [CM] views in their own terms". Peace, Sharing, Freedom for all in these Forums. CM

Dave_L

I think the Bible (66 books) is God's Word even as translated over the centuries. But it is a labyrinth of contradictions and dead ends to many by design. The problem is in missing the big picture while straining at the details.

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
1. Define the two basic terms.
2. What is the history of each? What necessitates this division?
3. Who or what religious body support Errancy or Inerrancy?
4. Is one side completely wrong? Is there a middle ground?
5. Where are the conservatives, Evangelicals, Liberals on the subject matter?
6. What is the popular or the most accepted view or understanding today?
7. Is it translations or declaration that caused some to see the Bible as Errant or Inerrant?
Please share your view with respect and clarity. CM

I do not understand the purpose of these questions and how they are to help to have an exchange or discussion about the one simple question whether or not the Biblical text has errors or is free or errors.

I would think the more simple questions within this topic would be:
1. what is meant with "the Bible" / "Biblical text" regarding this question (for example, are we talking about modern day translations, are we talking about the original text as it was originally inspired, ancient copies of manuscripts, etc) ?
2. does "given by inspiration of God" have bearing, that is, would God inspire mistakes and errors for His writers to write? if God does not inspired errors, does it follow that the original writings were without error, that is inerrant?
3. since there are none of the real originals of the texts in extent (as much as is known), does that mean that there were no inerrant originals?
4. were copies made and translations into other languages made also made "as God-inspired", or were these made to the best of human capabilities but may contain mistakes and errors?
5. Is it possible - to some degree at least - to sort of "get back" to the original text by means of careful comparison of the many existing ancient manuscripts and copies and evaluating these along some objective measure?

My take would be that the original text were God-inspired and as such were inerrant. In the course of copying and translating mistakes did creep into the text, many of which can be detected by comparing various readings and evaluating them properly. Unfortunately, in the course of time there have also been purposely introduced errors and mistakes in order to make verses seemingly support false doctrines (commonly, such would be called "forgery") ... such can also be detected by comparison and evaluation against other texts and the overall scope of Scripture.

C Mc

Brethren,
I think to move forward with our understanding of Errancy/Inerrancy is to review the historical origin of each movement. And then, view how they measure up with the Bible. Even before that, it would be helpful to understand how the circulation of the Bible has been opposed "outside" and "inside" the church.

History reveals that there have been relentless efforts to prevent the message of God’s Word from reaching sincere people. Some of it is surprising and painful. Regardless, history reveals the past and "Truth" sets us free. I found five groups in the past who attempted to prevent reading of the Bible.

A cross-section of institutions, over the years, prevented the circulation of the Bible; such as Roman Emperors, the Catholic Church, English kings, Protestant church leaders, and communists governments. In addition, there is "Biblical Criticism" a.k.a. "Higher Criticism". This movement has been largely responsible during the past three centuries for undermining biblical authority. Is there any truth to these claims?

@Dave_L said: "...God's Word...is a labyrinth of contradictions and dead ends to many by design...

In my next post, I hope to unpack the points above. Stay tuned for "HISTORICAL ATTACKS AGAINST THE BIBLE." Dave, it may help explain your recent statement. CM

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

I do not understand the purpose of these questions and how they are to help to have an exchange or discussion about the one simple question whether or not the Biblical text has errors or is free or errors.

He who wants answers should ask questions. Your questions or my questions, I think this forum can accommodate both.

I would think the more simple questions within this topic would be:
1. what is meant with "the Bible" / "Biblical text" regarding this question (for example, are we talking about modern day translations, are we talking about the original text as it was originally inspired, ancient copies of manuscripts, etc) ?
2. does "given by inspiration of God" have bearing, that is, would God inspire mistakes and errors for His writers to write? if God does not inspired errors, does it follow that the original writings were without error, that is inerrant?
3. since there are none of the real originals of the texts in extent (as much as is known), does that mean that there were no inerrant originals?
4. were copies made and translations into other languages made also made "as God-inspired", or were these made to the best of human capabilities but may contain mistakes and errors?
5. Is it possible - to some degree at least - to sort of "get back" to the original text by means of careful comparison of the many existing ancient manuscripts and copies and evaluating these along some objective measure?

There are no prison doors or chains here to restrict. You are free and invited, to pursue the answers to your questions here or in a new thread. Everyone can share freely in the conversation of this topic. One man's contribution is a treasure and to another man, it's trash. If nothing else is gained, we would have increased our ability of discernment.

My take would be that the original text were God-inspired and as such were inerrant. In the course of copying and translating mistakes did creep into the text, many of which can be detected by comparing various readings and evaluating them properly. Unfortunately, in the course of time there have also been purposely introduced errors and mistakes in order to make verses seemingly support false doctrines (commonly, such would be called "forgery") ... such can also be detected by comparison and evaluation against other texts and the overall scope of Scripture.

Thanks for your contribution, Wolfgang! CM

Bill_Coley

@C_M_ said:
Bill, speak to your heart is contented. Make your case. This is why this thread was created. If you think my beginning is too burdensome and contain "inflammatory language such as "full of errors'"; by all means, start a new thread and make your case. Nothing ever stopped you before.

On the issue I raised in my last post, CM, I did make my case, which was simply that there are more than two possible points of view on the question of the Bible's inerrancy.

You appear to be a skilled writer and "debater", do your thing here or create your own thread. "Don't make a mountain out of a molehill", by saying I should "allow CD participants to define their own points of view, and THEN to endeavor to summarize the posted views accurately." Come, on Bill, stop cursing the dark and light a candle and express yourself. START A NEW TREAD ON THE TOPIC!

One of the most valuable bits of counsel I have ever received came at a denominational convention more than 25 years ago, when one of our church leaders told me that a key to engaging people whose views are very different from your own (as well as people whose views are similar to yours, for that matter) is first to allow them to speak for themselves, to characterize and label their own views before you label and characterize them. Any mountains I built out of the molehills of your OP likely have roots in that leader's wisdom. Any "cursing the dark" I did, however, likely has to do with the fact that I am more tolerant of cursing - at least in the dark - than are many people.

The last time I checked, you (and everyone else) were totally free to:
1. Read and respond.
2. Answer a question.
3. Respond with facts, opinions, quotes, texts references, etc.
4. Answer some questions, all questions or none at all.
5. Or read, and say nothing.

In my view, my last post embodied four of your five options.

Is not these forums are opened? Please, Bill, don't make me the scapegoat for your unwillingness to engage the subject. Exercise your options, but spare me; I am not the jailer of these forums.

I hope it helps for you to know that you have no role in whether I choose to engage the subject of biblical inerrancy or any other subject in these forums. Nor do I consider you a goat - "scape" or otherwise - or a jailer. In fact, my previous post wasn't about you at all; it was about the content of your OP.

Jan

Since the Bible itself does not teach that it is inerrant, I have some problems accepting inerrancy on the sole basis of "doctrine". It would contradict "sola scriptura".
However, the Bible does teach that all Scripture is God-breathed, and implying from that that Scripture therefore must be inerrant, is sound interpretation. Still, as interpretation, it is prone to error.

Having said that, I fully agree with all articles of the Chicago statement of inerrancy:
http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf

Now God has given us not only the Bible, but (according to St. Augustine) a second book of revelation, namely creation. Is the "book of creation" inerrant or not?