Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

i do agree that your question is misled.if one has faith enough to determine the bible to be inerrant, that must be preceded by faith enough to believe in the divine. inerrancy is a separate faith built on top of a faith in the divine....and a faith i do not possess.
i believe in the divine because i do not believe in the creativity of mankind. i do not think that humans are capable of inventing god on the scale that they have. in my opinion, all of our inventions are merely adjustments of things that we have seen. computers are merely simple brains. we have known that the brain transmits and translate electrons and such are our compuers.
this lack of faith in humanity demands a something to base our idea of god on. therefore, there must be a god. on top of this, i have many personal and unconvincing experiences that i feel support my idea of god. but, to imagine these are proof requires a prior belief. i do not believe in inerrancy, because the bible is nothing more than the recorded experiences of people who thought they knew god. if it is inerrant, my faith is not shaken, but i have not found it to be thus.am i entirely wrong in my perceptions? possibly, probably. does this matter? do i need a faith in human reporting (biblical inerrancy) to believe in god? no. i know full well how much people mangle the things they write down.the bible is a collection of books. many of those books are edited summaries of entire libraries of knowledge (specifically the old testament). the rest of it is poetry, daydreams, and faulty "eyewitness" material written amazingly long after the fact.what if the things the bible is wrong on are the parts i like? well i guess i'm shit out of luck. my beliefs do not change reality and i could be very, very far off from such. what if our idea of god is based on a really powerful king once upon a time and it all got blown way out of proportion slowly? well then i guess i'm wrong. but does that make my mind or my life somehow less valuable? no.based on the information at hand, it is foolish to throw out the whole thing. i have a novel that i really enjoyed reading. i picked it up by chance when my high school library was giving away books. i took home like 15 and this was one. it's about a girl named eugenie. she was the daughter of a cloth merchant in marseille. it's a fantastic story about how she fell in love with a young army officer named napoleone and was then spurned by him. she met napoleone afer his brother joseph walked her home from the jail where she visited her (father i think) to take him some clothing after he was jailed for some comment of other against the revolution or some thing... i forget. when she was getting ready to go to the jail, the book says she stuffed some handkercheifs into her dress to make her look older. she was 14 and flat chested. anyways. napoleone spurns her for a lady named josephine. then eugenie marries a man named bernadotte. after many years she became the queen of sweden.this sounds spectacular no? what if she didn't in fact stuff her bra? does that change the fact that she did in fact become the queen of sweden? does it change the fact that her sister married joseph, napoleon's brother? does it change history? no. it's a story written after the fact with some details added for embellishment.there have been a ton of floods in the world. if asia minor flooded and some guy managed to save his family and some stuff by getting on a boat, then great. does the fact that there has never been a worldwide flood change the idea that jesus said 'blessed are the peacemakers' and that it is a good idea to make peace? jamais.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i don't believe in god because of some dude on a boat. i also don't believe in a god who was so daft as to make a mistake he later regretted and said he'd never do again. i also don't believe that god created the rainbow less than 4000 years ago (after said boat incident). does this make me not believe in god? no. does this make me not believe in the god referred to in the bible? i don't think so, but there are those here who do. actually, it's a horrible read. it's badly written and even worse, many of the topics and commands are disturbing at best and disgusting at worst. do i have faith in the resurrection? i'm not sure anymore. i haven't worked it out yet. i'm getting there. but i do have faith in the idea of the resurrection... that god has forgiven us our wrongs and we need only cling to him for grace and all is forgiven and all is forgotten and we don't have to feel guilty anymore. i believe in a god who wants to teach us how to 'glorify and enjoy him forever'. you can't glorify and enjoy if you are trapped in guilt. free, free, free at last. free to dance naked before the lord because he is enjoyable and i am free of the guilt and the shame that was given to me by my world. that is the sum of the text to me. that david loved god and god loved and forgave david and david was so freed because of this love that his very nakedness was no longer shameful. this can be an inspiring and faith-bringing experience (because i have felt the same, and by reading, i know i am not alone) whether or not israel actually defeated the king of whatever country as the bible says or didn't as the art of that king's reign suggests.
i'm kind of a mystic. i'm into the experiences that people share of their god. i'm interested in the blind man who was no longer enslaved by his blindness, whether he actually was healed or not. i'm interested in the idea of a forgiving god whether jesus was his son or just a prophet and whether he lived or died. there is no unimpugnable evidence whatsoever outside the bible for the existence of this man at all, much less his ressurection. but somehow only the innerrancy of scripture would allow a consistent belief in it? there are more problems here than simple inerrancy. being skeptical, the only way that i can believe in the resurrection is to NOT believe in the inerrancy of the bible. if the bible is absolutely perfect, then it is absolutely wrong. if it is absolutely consistent, then it is absolutely bullshit. the world was not created ex nihlo 6000 years ago. it simply wasn't. can't possibly be. the only possibility is if god created in the earth an appearance to lie and to deceive and to appear old. my god does not deceive.and don't tell me about satan doing it. it is clear to me that satan does precisely what god tells him to. he tempts, he does not create lies. how could satan create? for there to be lies in the earth, they must have been created (if the earth was created). satan isn't a creator. that would give him power equal to god and THAT is polytheism and heresy.it is easier for me to believe in the grand idea of the bible if the whole thing is not absolute and consistent and 'true'. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

pure force of will and purposeful ignorance of reality?in some, however, the tradition of thought simply does not allow any other options. i have been raised to understand that the reason things stick to the ground is beause of gravity. if someone suddenly described that it was some other thing, i'm not really sure i would be capable of even beginning to wrap my head around it. some assumptions are so fundamental that they don't allow any flexibility.there was a woman (conservative jew) in a bible history class i took. when the professor suggested such things as "this bit about such and such happening before there were kings in israel suggests that the book was written after there were kings in israel" she had a total mental block. she couldn't imagine anything except that god had dictated the torah to moses. you could literally see smoke coming out of her ears. her most fundamental assumption was that god had written the torah through the hand of certain people and that was how it was. that was the only potential reality and anything that went against that simply could not compute.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

i really don't know. i'm working on that. but, in my opinion, god exists outside of the professions of him, so why should i change my title? god is the same, it it only how i understand my comprehension of him that has changed. i've been a christian since i was three. why should that change now?

nonsense, jesus is not the origin of any thought. david didn't have jesus and god loved him and forgave him. noah didn't have jesus. joseph (and his technicolor coat of jealousy) didn't have jesus. jesus could easily be a parable of application of that personal relationship to the entirety of mankind. why does it need to be true to tell us that god loves us and is capable of forgiving us.