RE: Biblical Inerrancy - mandatory to be Christian?
March 18, 2013 at 10:08 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm by jstrodel.)
I do not think the Bible requires innerancy. Innerancy was a concept that developed in the 19th century in the debates between conservative theologians and liberalism. It is sort of a way to stake out the authority of the Bible in a specific way.
In the Bible itself, people quote the Septuagint as scripture, which suggests that the authors of scripture did not necessarily have a great concern to represent the original manuscripts down to every last detail being correct. When you also consider that God did not preserve the original manuscripts, it adds further weight.
The way that Jesus uses scripture, well, Jesus takes the Bible very seriously but he substantially reinterprets it. He says that all the scripture will be fulfilled in him and not one jot or tittle will pass away, but he substantially reinterprets the Bible.
Many Protestants do not accept the concept of innerancy. I believe that the Bible is a human and divine product. God regularly speaks to me when I read the Bible, verses pop out which are often confirmed as prophetic words by people in church or elsewhere. I know that it is inspired and 2 Ti 3:16 is true. At the same time I feel that God has given me peace through speaking to me about Genesis and it being absolutely literal in every detail (which I do not believe).
Read the Bible and take it seriously. I wouldn't worry about trying to prove every single detail of it, it is thousands of years old. Don't let that dissuade you from realizing its authority though as there is thousands of years of tradition and interpretation behind it.
Spoken like a true intellectual, defining detailed systematic philosophical concepts that are extremely controversial by appealing to a dictionary definition (probably not even a dictionary designed for such a purpose either).
We should give you a gold star and crown you "critical thinker of the month"
In the Bible itself, people quote the Septuagint as scripture, which suggests that the authors of scripture did not necessarily have a great concern to represent the original manuscripts down to every last detail being correct. When you also consider that God did not preserve the original manuscripts, it adds further weight.
The way that Jesus uses scripture, well, Jesus takes the Bible very seriously but he substantially reinterprets it. He says that all the scripture will be fulfilled in him and not one jot or tittle will pass away, but he substantially reinterprets the Bible.
Many Protestants do not accept the concept of innerancy. I believe that the Bible is a human and divine product. God regularly speaks to me when I read the Bible, verses pop out which are often confirmed as prophetic words by people in church or elsewhere. I know that it is inspired and 2 Ti 3:16 is true. At the same time I feel that God has given me peace through speaking to me about Genesis and it being absolutely literal in every detail (which I do not believe).
Read the Bible and take it seriously. I wouldn't worry about trying to prove every single detail of it, it is thousands of years old. Don't let that dissuade you from realizing its authority though as there is thousands of years of tradition and interpretation behind it.
(March 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL< loving it, "new and improved innerrancy - now with more wiggle room!" You do realize that anything that requires any wiggling whatsoever is, technically, in error, do you not? The very word error has it's roots in "to wander, to stray".
Spoken like a true intellectual, defining detailed systematic philosophical concepts that are extremely controversial by appealing to a dictionary definition (probably not even a dictionary designed for such a purpose either).
We should give you a gold star and crown you "critical thinker of the month"
