Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

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.

Sorry but that has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is inerrant. Salvation is a whole different issue. But if you want to know my position of Salvation, one place to start is Message 1You asked about the importance of inerrancy. I simply asked if it is impossible for Christians to even decide what books are in or out of the Bible, how can the issue of whether the Bible is inerrant even be discussed? Which Canon constitutes the Bible is certainly important.Assume for a second that in court you were presented with several different copies of what was supposed to be the same contract. Suppose each of those contracts contained different material, and each was certified as being accurate, and each was purported to be the "TRUE and ACCURATE" version? Imagine in addition that one of those contracts had only five sections while another included those five as well as 40 more? First, do not think that I "consider it a moral guideline, one extended parable, and little else". It is quite a bit more than that. It is also a glimpse at a people as they grow, evolve and mature. It shows their thinking about life, GOD, society, their history and mythology, their traditions and customs, their hopes, asperations, fears, conflicts, failures and successes.Nor do I see the Bible as flawed. To assume I believe that is to misunderstand my position. But just as with anything else, we can try to use the Bible for other than what its intended purpose was, and that act may result in failure.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not at all. What has already been given can not be "promised". It can only be used. And yet the Bible is chock-full of parables, and some of them are explicitly designated as parables.Take the parable of the prodigal son, for example. Though the son turned his back on his father, his father welcomed him back with open arms. There was never any promise of that. It was inherent in the father-son relationship described.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, that is indeed what I am saying. And that's why inerrancy should not matter to moderate Christians. It is only a problem for people who have made the scripture itself into their God (i.e. fundamentalists).

Did you know that taking the Bible at face value is a relatively new stance?NONE of the church fathers took the entire Bible literally, they all interpreted the text to some degree.I have stated before, and I hope if I am wrong I can be corrected, that I cannot find anyone who says to take the Bible at face value before Martin Luther in the 16th century.Maybe other members know of someone, but I haven't seen any evidence.This 'gimmick' of having to contort reality to make the Bible inerrant is actually the product of a weak faith, these people do not trust the words in the Bible, they NEED external evidence because their faith in its accuracy is so weak.Imagine if they did find some evidence of Noah's flood, or an Exodus, or a Conqest, or a period of the Judges, or a united monarchy, or this or that, surely that would make Jesus' promises in the Bible just that little bit more believable.Nope, Bible inerrancy = weak Christian.Brian.

... 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.

Sorry about that. No, not when the premise does not apply to the case under study.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

lovely, for some reason though, i find it hard to believe that the period of the dark ages and the plague era where people believed in all sorts of rot, would not involve the belief in some form of inerrancy.

The KJV?Not in my circle! Later translations are more easily understood. I even go so far as to use The Message transliteration when I talk to the juveniles...it speaks much clearer in thought for thought translation.My question regarding innerrency is not so much whether the word for word ideas are translated, but whether the thought for thought....the ideas and meanings...are important.

The Flood very well could be a parable...an idea...and a message. It need not be a literal event.

​

Jesus, on the other hand needs to be real because He represents an origin of thought.

​

2 Peter 1:21-- For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And nobody is suggesting that it is "all parable". One difference between an inerrantist and a moderate is that the moderate recognizes that there are sections that are the equivalent of parables but are not designated specifically as parables. The moderate recognizes that a parable doesn't have to say, "This is a parable," in flashing neon lights. Another distinction that inerrantists fail to make is between "presented as truth" and actual, verifiable "truth". I have a book which purports to be the "true" biography of James Bond. One has to examine it fairly closely to determine whether or not it was intended as work of fiction. "How it's taken" is pretty much irrelevant. Any work of fiction can be "taken" as non-fiction by somebody who doesn't read it critically.If a book contains useful information, advice, etc., what difference does it make if everything in the book is literally true? What difference does it make who wrote it?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Why does a "representation" have to be "real"?A painting of an apple represents a real apple, but is it a "real" apple?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

Brian,I'll totally bow to your superior knowledge of the subject matter, but didn't Augustine originate the "official" inerrancy line? Of course, he also supposedly clarified that any particular translation might contain mistakes. The letter to St. Jerome, and one of the Confessions, IIRC, were where he talked about it.