I'm going to open a can of worms here...
What's your take on Biblical Inerrancy?
Biblical Inerrancy: The beliefe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are inspired of God, are without error in the original writings, and are the supreme and final authority for faith and life.
So what do you think? Also, just for fun tell us what your educational background is.
So I would say that taking the high road and the low road are fine things. I'm going to restart the discussion so the threads come back. Look for my reply at the end of the replies.
But, since we are dealing with specifics... why not ask about the resurrection narratives? Are there not clear discrepancies between them which tip us off that they can't all describe exactly what happened, and that, furthermore, some of the specific details in some of them must be wrong?
And, yet, I find these surface discrepancies actually add to their credibility as historical documents. It strongly suggests the writers did not collude - I would be very suspicious if they did agree on every detail. In this case, the errors increase my faith!
Oh man, I just typed for 10 minutes and accidentally hit the "back" key. I'll come back to this later after a good ol' Sunday nap.
Suffice it to say that the position you're proposing falls into the "high criticism" camp. I don't think it can be maintained along with faith for very long. You are forced to look at so many events with a skeptical eye that you start to lose even the basic things that make up your faith. At least that's what I've seen several times over. If you aren't able to see the entire Bible as having been "dropped" by God through human hands, and as being reliable and trustworthy, there is nothing that keeps you anchored in it. If that happens, you're like the Terminator that was a skeleton by the end of the movie. He was eventually crushed in a break press. And it was really cool when the electrical arcs shot all over the place. Of course the time bandits were able to reach back into time and bring him back. That kills my whole analogy. Did you hear the one about the Irish sailor?
Time for that nap.
"So the doctrine of inerrancy is exactly like that of Trinity"
On thinking further about this, I think this is not a fair comparison. They are completely different kinds of doctrine.
The doctrine of the Trinity was always a doctrine that was reaching for some difficult-to-grasp truth, the sort of truth that is perhaps best expressed in poetry, song, dance, or artistic creation. It is a truth that is on the edges of human language.
In contrast, the doctrine of inerrancy is a huge, monolithic, absolutist doctrine. It isn't possible to have a doctrine of near-inerrancy; that would be something else entirely. You would never make a dance out of it, but you might use it to bully someone into submission.
Is it any wonder, then, that I'm happy with inductive reasoning for one, yet not the other?
No, it's not my point. It's exactly similar because scripture doesn't overtly teach it. That was my only point. But the rest of what you say is mostly your own feeling. I don't agree on either point, but then that's just me.
So you think it is possible to have a doctrine of near-inerrancy, then?
Yes - in a matter of words. There are many who feel that there are some major gaffs in scripture, that the authors made mistakes or failed to do their research before writing. But for the most part, they feel the rest is reliable and trustworthy. Of course this exists in varying degrees. I'm not in that camp.
this could go on forever and I don't think God would want His children argueing over such things, it goes back to what i said earlier, you either believe or you don't theres no grey line here. dig into your Word with faith and an open mind not through a mathamatical, anilitical mind. Jesus said come to me as children, he didn't day anilize the Word to death.
I agree it could go on forever. I'm simply trying to get you to think a little bit, and (actually) I'm trying to get you to have an open mind about this..... remember, I'm not the one insisting on an absolute, immovable doctrine of inerrancy. I'm not the one saying "you either believe or you don't and there's no grey line". I'm trying to get you to loosen up a bit, to consider whether you really need this doctrine.
I'm quite shocked that you would think that a mathematical, analytical mind is not also open. Really this displays a certain prejudice on your part.
But I'm sorry if you feel threatened by the line I'm taking.
If you call believing what I believe prejudice then I guess you would be too for coming against what I believe. And I do not feel threatened, I KNOW what I believe.
Among the purposes for having Discussions, one is to open our hearts and minds to each other, to appreciate types of thinking other than that which is our own or comes from our local set of friends and teachers.
This is truly an iron-sharpens-iron sort of discussion topic. As its author noted, it opens a can of worms. I'm not totally sure that everyone here even has the same picture of what the word "inerrant" means. My understanding has been improved by the many thoughtful responses.
All we can really put out here is our thoughts; we may be stretching the discussion out of its boundaries if we begin to assume what our fellow-respondents are thinking behind their words.
Jesus considered it possible, and recommendable, for us to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
I've never had snake meat, but I hear it makes good sausage. But then I would think the snake who contributed to my sausage wasn't wise and deserved to be eaten. It's those black racers that I rarely see - they're wise. They even climb trees. Amazing. Do climb trees - Jesus demanded it.