A moral and ethical question for theists

[IATIA]

Inerrant?

So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.

Correct! 

[Catholic_Lady]

Inerrant?

So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.

Correct! 

See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.

[Longhorn]

I'm fully aware that you're regurgitating whatever your church has taught you. What I'm telling you is that regardless of the source of your information, your statement is contradictory.


To say that the bible is inerrant but not infallible is to say, "The bible contains no mistakes, but it could contain mistakes." That statement is inherently contradictory. It does not make sense. Those two things cannot be simultaneously true.

I see what you're saying, so let me try to clear it up. 

I should have said that the inerrancy of the bible has not been fully defined as far as what the exact extent of it is, and I think that's where we're running into problems here. Consider the following paragraph from Catholic Answers which explains this:

"Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."

So it's important to look at what the underlying principles are as the whole message of the bible, and that's the inerrancy of it, not necessarily each quote literally. (though a catholic may still believe that if he/she so wishes without going against church teaching, though I personally believe much of it was written symbolically/allegorically/metaphorically. A Catholic is free to believe in either.)

source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation

Correct! 

See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.

It doesn't.

Inerrant = not containing errors.
Bible contains errors, ergo it is not inerrant.

'The underlying message' has nothing to do with it. Either it contains no errors, or it contains errors, 'the message' notwithstanding.

[Randy Carson]

Inerrant?

So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.

We would have to go through these "contradictions" on a case by case basis. Whole books have been written to demonstrate that what appears to be a contradiction may not actually be a contradiction.

Some survivors of the Titanic said that the ship broke in two. Other survivors said it did not. Is that a contradiction? And does it really make much of a difference when the big picture is that Jesus rose from the dead...I mean, that the Titanic actually sank?

[IATIA]

See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.

I would think that the 'inspired word of god' should be unambiguous. Did god not know that the interpretations would be misconstrued at all levels? Even when the books were assembled initially at the First Council of Nicaea? Were they not inspired to correctly choose?

[Longhorn]

Inerrant?

So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.

We would have to go through these "contradictions" on a case by case basis. Whole books have been written to demonstrate that what appears to be a contradiction may not actually be a contradiction.

Some survivors of the Titanic said that the ship broke in two. Other survivors said it did not. Is that a contradiction? And does it really make much of a difference when the big picture is that Jesus rose from the dead...I mean, that the Titanic actually sank?

We have evidence the titanic existed and sank, which is not the case with Jesus.

It isn't about whether Jesus rise from the dead, though. It's a simple matter: either it contains errors, or it doesn't. You just admitted it does. Ergo, not inerrant.

What is so complicated about this?

[Catholic_Lady]

I see what you're saying, so let me try to clear it up. 

I should have said that the inerrancy of the bible has not been fully defined as far as what the exact extent of it is, and I think that's where we're running into problems here. Consider the following paragraph from Catholic Answers which explains this:

"Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."

So it's important to look at what the underlying principles are as the whole message of the bible, and that's the inerrancy of it, not necessarily each quote literally. (though a catholic may still believe that if he/she so wishes without going against church teaching, though I personally believe much of it was written symbolically/allegorically/metaphorically. A Catholic is free to believe in either.)

source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation

See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.

It doesn't.

Inerrant = not containing errors.
Bible contains errors, ergo it is not inerrant.

'The underlying message' has nothing to do with it. Either it contains no errors, or it contains errors, 'the message' notwithstanding.

What this means is it does not contain errors in terms of the overall message being portrayed, etc. But not as far as scientific and historical accuracy. I am not required to believe it was all written in literal form.

[Crossless2.0]

Inerrant? I'm still waiting for the archaeological evidence that Exodus isn't one long error (or should I say exercise in national propaganda?).

[Catholic_Lady]

Inerrant?

So I guess all the contradictions and the gospels not being able to get the story right are....NOT errors? ._.

We would have to go through these "contradictions" on a case by case basis. Whole books have been written to demonstrate that what appears to be a contradiction may not actually be a contradiction.

Some survivors of the Titanic said that the ship broke in two. Other survivors said it did not. Is that a contradiction? And does it really make much of a difference when the big picture is that Jesus rose from the dead...I mean, that the Titanic actually sank?

^Exactly this. The big picture, guys! 

[Redbeard The Pink]

I see what you're saying, so let me try to clear it up. 

I should have said that the inerrancy of the bible has not been fully defined as far as what the exact extent of it is, and I think that's where we're running into problems here. Consider the following paragraph from Catholic Answers which explains this:

"Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ."

So it's important to look at what the underlying principles are as the whole message of the bible, and that's the inerrancy of it, not necessarily each quote literally. (though a catholic may still believe that if he/she so wishes without going against church teaching, though I personally believe much of it was written symbolically/allegorically/metaphorically. A Catholic is free to believe in either.)

source: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation

See my post 46 for what I hope offers you both some clarification.

It doesn't.

Inerrant = not containing errors.
Bible contains errors, ergo it is not inerrant.

'The underlying message' has nothing to do with it. Either it contains no errors, or it contains errors, 'the message' notwithstanding.

Damn. Beat me to it.

Yeah...what he said. A text's inerrancy isn't in how much personal value the underlying message has, but whether the text contains contradictions and scientific/historical errors. If we're just ignoring what the text says and extrapolating hidden meanings from it, then it's no different from other literature and should be held in no higher regard.