Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

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.

A message is only as real as the author. There is no such thing as a message without an author.There are disagreements about whether Jesus was a messenger sent from God or whether He was an author of the message that he brought. In that regard, the issue about whether the Bible was inspired by God and written by man assumes importence, IMHO. If the origin of the ideals of the book came from me, it is another in a long line of humanist philosophies...although one could argue that IF the humans were inspired by God as a source, the differecne would be important.You have pointed out before that our interpretation of a belief MUST be subjective...arising within our own hearts and minds.The innerrency group may counter by asserting that just as water cannot rise higher than its source, human philosophy can never really bring humans to a higher level than they are intrinsically at.Jesus forgave sins. No human has the authority to forgive the sins of another, apart from those done to them individually.Jesus was human, however. Do you believe He also was of Divine origin?
Would that make a difference as to the importance of the message He brought? If not, why not?

Hi, Brian. Quoting from the link you provided here, I agree with Augustine if the author interprets him correctly. Look at the implications of "spiritual light". If Jesus or the Holy Spirit are a spiritual source of light, this particular light does not have to be limited by the laws of physics. It can shine into the corners of dense minds and hardened hearts.The author at your source link quotes Augustine as saying that It seem that Augustine was quite a thinking chap! Water is a spritual metaphor, as mentioned by Jesus to the woman at the well. Similarly, water is mentioned in 1 John.I wonder if the blood mentioned so often in the bible is a spiritual thing as well? I certainly cant see literal blood being as deep as a horses bridal! RE: Interestingly, John, 1 John, and Revelation were said to originate from the same author by some scholars. They certainly all portray a similar type of symbolism.

---

“There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way” --C.S.Lewis

so why is a "modern" scholar any better equipped to answer the issue? Many of these so-called modern scholars are biased against God to begin with!

Phat DID indeed heave up a softball. Im playing Devils advocate on much of this exchange....my beliefs have changed over the years, but I think that people have to realize why I have a case, if in fact I do have one! Because in many, if not most areas of endevour, facts are facts. When building a bridge, calculus is undeniably calculus! Knowledge of how deep to sink the support structures is never in question. Similarly, in an operating room, medical science relies on the latest in suturing techniques, blood clotting, and anesthesiology. The Bible can be examined as a text written by humans over a large period of time. You correctly say that Thats fine and dandy, but lets philosophically question the original source of the wisdom to begin with. Its not just as if some old sage on a mountaintop gets struck by lightening and utters profound sayings to anyone bold enough to climb up to him. Now what does that mean? Is it wrong for me to use a scriptural quote to explain the message, the intention, or the wisdom (or lack of same) contained in the Bible? Indeed. If one is predisposed to believe in a Holy Spirit and in the ability of that Spirit to speak through humans---at certain times--one would give weight to the source that the author (whoever the author was) followed. In other words, either1) The author simply made this statement up to be politically correct and to manipulate a certain audience
or
2) The author felt in all honesty and by all integrity that what he was writing was in fact inspired by God as the author understood God.The authors view of God has a lot to do with the reasoning behind the words that they say.Words are not true or false in and of themselves. The source becomes important.Edited by Phat, : various grammatical sins