Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

It is my understanding that if the bible is not the inerrant word of God, then the tenets of the Judeo-Christian faiths have no base in Divinity. Now, I've met some who do not hold that the Bible must be inerrant for their faith. For moderate Christians, who do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible, what is the motivation for following faith?Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Can you explain how someone could come to believe that the Bible is inerrant without following faith ?

---

no, without faith, the stories of the bible are untenable.

quote:

---

And what would the motivation be for that faith ?

---

taken out of context, that would be rewording my question.i'm not too sure what you're asking on a whole.

a sermon is not really the same as a holy text. If the faith(religion) is based solely on what it says in a

quote:

---

No, I'm not rewording your question, I'm reflecting it to show that your question isn't the issue you make it. You asked what was the motivation for the faith to beleive in Christianity without believing that the Bible is inerrant. I asked what would be the motivation for the faith to beleive that the Bible is inerrant.

​

In short I view your question as a mistake. The belief in inerrancy makes no fundamental difference - I would suggest that the motivations in each case are similar. Arguably the belief in Biblical inerrancy requires more faith to gloss over the internal tensions and inconsistencies in the inerrancy doctrine.

---

... that leaves me worse off then it did when i started no?

i think, somewhere in there was what i was looking for... yet, you're treating the bible as a "good read"? And, if you're doing this, then is there still faith in the resurrection?Being skeptical, the only way i could believe in the resurrection is if i also believed in the inerrant nature of the bible.if noah was just some dude on a boat, it's still an inspirational story, sure, but it would by no means be a base for faith.Edited by AlienInvader, : added noahness

quote:

---

Which Bible? There are several Canons (lists of what is or is not in the Bible) and no one Universal Canon. Until you can identify what the Bible is, it is impossible to even ask if it is inerrant.

---

whichever floats your boat basically, i'm asking about personal beliefs.

quote:

---

Second, what is inerrant? Does that mean it is accuract as a guide to Faith? Or does that mean that it must be factually correct in terms of history and events? If it contains a parable, a fable told by Jesus to explain some point, do those events in the parable need to be factually correct? If not, then is there any reason that other tales such as the Flood could also be meant simply as a means of illustrating some underlying moral or lesson?

---

i once heard that the resurrection is the core of the christian faith, without the resurrection... yeah. If the mundane parts are in error, wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect that the more exceptional parts are also in error?

so, what kind of thing makes for the strength of belief that can legitimize a faulty text.

quote:

---

I believe that the ressurection (and it is not as much the core as the Ascension) happened but even if it were not true, the basic message of Christianity would still be valid.

---

but the message isn't the faith... hell, i believe in most of the messages.

so in essense, you're a diest?

well, to the average american, that'd be the king james right?
inerrancy, is that the bible (king james version) is accurate in all it's accounts... the real question is, why aren't all christians literalists?and shouldn't it be important that a holy text be accurate in it's account?Edited by AlienInvader, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The question then becomes, "If Christianity cannot even agree on which books should or should not be in the Bible, how can we say that any one Bible, regardless of translation, is innerant?"

---

actually, that's a whole different topic, my question isn't about which canon, that's unimportant, what i'm questioning is the source of belief regardless of the group of text.

quote:

---

One possiblity is that the two stories teach us lessons about how people of a given period saw GOD, different aspects of the external entity, the Territory that is GOD. In Genesis 1 we see a transcendant separate GOD, sure, overarching, aloof. In Genesis 2 we see a personal GOD, a friend and companion. Two different lessons.

---

salvation isn't supposed to be a "lesson" it's supposed to be a promise. A tale, a parable even, isn't good enough to qualify as a holy text, pandering in the salvation of souls.my question is about the why of the belief structure, and foundation, of those who don't "jump through loops" to reconcile the bible, but instead acknowledge it as flawed. Do they, as you do, consider it a moral guideline, one extended parable, and little else? and if so, how do they justify their belief in an afterlife with its only base in this extended parable? and if not, then what do they believe?

quote:

---

The Bible is the story of the Jewish people's struggle to understand their God.

---

ok

quote:

---

That they made mistakes along the way, and that their concept of God evolved over time, does not imply that fails as a guide.

---

ok... wait, wtf? mostly right, does not a holy text make, what you're implying is that, it's good enough, as a holy text? and people along the way, blew it's inerrancy out of proportion?

quote:

---

That it is not inerrant does not pose a problem.

---

doesn't really, fit well, with what i've seen. Observation trumps theory ^_^.

quote:

---

If anything, it is the assumption of inerrancy that poses the greater problem. For those who believe inerrancy must accept that their God is massively confused, is at times evil, and is highly inconsistent.

---

it's disheartening to see their antics too.

... you are frustrating... i'm working from a hypothetical, so can you please not criticize my premise?

quote:

---

And yet the Bible is chock-full of parables, and some of them are explicitly designated as parables.

---

my issue is that, the bible itself isn't designated as one big parable, a large portion of the recounting is presented as truth... nonfiction if you will; or that's how it's taken.

and what this further means is... i know a lot more fundamentalists than i do moderates... if we follow your criterion.