Talk:Biblical inerrancy

"Error" Category

In the interests of neutrality, I have removed the "Biblical Inerrancy" page from the category "Error." I'm not sure if someone was attempting to be ironic, but the classifying of the position as "Error" when you have links offering arguments for and against the concept of inerrancy seems to me to be begging the question. ----Bryan Rhodes, Postgrad in Divinity, University of Edinburgh

Can't anyone prove the Bible wrong?

Can't anyone prove the Bible wrong? ANYONE at all? Has anyone ever had a successful debate against www.gotquestions.org, www.carm.org, and other such websites? Has anyone ever debated against REAL Biblical scholars and theologians, and was successful? It seems like there is a lot of misinformation spread, such as, for instance, Jesus and Horus comparisons, Jesus and Mithra, Jesus and Krishna, etc. And arguments also just drag ON AND ON AND ON. If a skeptic or atheist or critic says ANYTHING, there's ALWAYS a response or rebuttal from the Christians, and it NEVER ends. Is it because the Bible is written in such cryptic language that basically ANYTHING can be interpreted from it? Because things that the Christians were once against often end up becoming accepted, such as evolution, Big Bang, Earth revolving around the Sun, etc. There needs to be an honest way to put an end to it, because Christianity is harmful to so many, including myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You know, I have to sympathize with the feeling; I've been there too. But "Can't anyone prove the Bible wrong?" Why do you want to? The Bible is inerrant, but its interpreters vary. And you know, when two people are arguing over an interpretation, it's always possible that they're both wrong! But the Bible is not to blame for that. The Bible is meant as food for the soul, not as ammunition for the power-hungry. So if an argument frustrates you, it's ok to stop arguing, for you're only losing the frustration. If you lose your temper, the argument is lost already. And if you keep your temper, winning the argument still doesn't feed you. So why do you want to argue? As you said, it's pretty pointless. But the soul still needs food. The question is, where do you want to go looking for some? The choice is still yours, as it always has been. May God bless your journey. Evenssteven (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

As Bart Ehrman said, Christian fundamentalism is a closed system. There are liberal Christians (actually the majority of all Christians would count themselves in this camp, if they would think about it) who readily admit that the Bible has errors, from small spelling mistakes to big theological contradictions. From Ivy Plus to US state universities this is the standard academic view upon the Bible.

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Inerrancy in the face of disagreements between the Masoretic text, Septuagint and other versions of the Bible

No discussion of inerrancy is complete without bringing up the fact that the Masoretic text (the basis of the Catholic and Lutheran bibles) and Septuagint (the basis of the Eastern Orthodox bibles) have mutually contradictory content. The most notable example of this is that the former states that the commandment not to bear false witness is #8, while the latter states that it is #9 - so that they don't even agree on their account to not bear false witness! The full extent of the disagreement may be seen in the following table Ten Commandments#Numbering. There is also disagreement between different versions on what the life spans of the patriarchs in Genesis were. For instance, the Masoretic version says Seth was born when Adam was 130, the Septuagint says it happened when Adam was 230. The full extent of the disagreement between the different versions may be seen here Genealogies of Genesis#Genesis_numbers. In all cases, clearly, somebody is in error. So, any argument posed for inerrancy must be weighed against the fact that somebody (and possibly everybody) is in error so that the argument clearly failed to hold for them; and must explain why or how the arguments for inerrancy should not fail to hold for everyone, given that it actually does fail to hold for at least all but one, by virtue of their errancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1401:8806:222:69FF:FE4C:408B (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Doctrine?

The term "doctrine of biblical inerrancy" is used in many places in the article. But shouldn't we be cautious about using that specific word "doctrine"? Isn't "doctrine" usually reserved for something held by a specific denomination or group of denominations? For example, transubstantiation is associated primarily with Roman Catholicism; and trinitarianism is more widely associated with all the major denominations of the world. It is that association with the denomination, or group of denominations, that provides the claimed "doctrine" with its implicit authority for that denomination. Additionally, most such theological propositions have gained this tested and proven authority over the passage of many decades or more.

But can "biblical inerrancy" be accurately described as such a doctrine? Sure, as a proposition it is shared across many individual Christians across several denominations. But other Christians within those same denominations also shy away from some its implications.

Does "biblical inerrancy" have that stamp of authority of major denominations across sufficient time to be described as doctrine? Shouldn't this Wikipedia article be cautious in so describing it? We can certainly mention that the description doctrine is sometimes applied as a descriptor, but oughtn't we to back that up with references indicating the nuances?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Feline Hymnic I think you are mistaken; a Doctrine may be propagated by an organisation of just about any size. There are doctrines that all Christians adhere to (not that many, but some). And there are doctrines that only Plymouth Brethren adhere to. It just means a teaching, or a point of belief. See [1]. The only authority needed to make a teaching into a doctrine is a teacher.

Note that the term Denomination doesn't really mean very much. It amounts to a group of worshippers that are distinguished by a shared name. The Roman Catholics are a denomination; so are the Wee Frees. For that matter, Deobandi and Sufi are major denominations in Islam. Certainly there are aspects of doctrine on which not all Roman Catholics agree (despite the efforts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith); similarly with Sufis.

In the context of inerrancy, I am fairly confident that there are groups within the Southern Baptist Convention (for example) that disagree with biblical inerrancy, and groups that support it. I think it's quite likely that such differences of opinion might well occur within the congregation of a single Baptist church. My point here is that I don't think there's any hard link between doctrines and denominations.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My question wasn't primarily about denominations; the use of denomination was simply an example, a hook, of some sort of authority body. Rather it is about the edge (perhaps fuzzy) of 'doctrine', and the recognition of authority in laying claim to that word. (By the way, my Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives a much fuller description of the word 'doctrine' than the online OED link above.)

Let's take two extreme examples. Suppose I personally declare some idea X of my own invention related to Christian theology to be a 'doctrine'; clearly it isn't a doctrine despite my declaration that it is. But suppose the Pope, backed his cardinals, makes a declaration about an idea Y, then that could legitimately be classified as a doctrine. Somewhere between those limits there is a boundary (perhaps fuzzy) distinguishing doctrine from personal opinion. And that needn't be related to denomination.

Let's try a different tack, concentrating now on this 'doctrine' of biblical inerrancy. Suppose this Wikipedia were adjusted to change occurrences of "doctrine of biblical inerrancy" to something like "notion of biblical inerrancy". Which would be a better description? On what basis should a justifiable revert of such a WP edit back to "doctrine of..." be made? And if the article is describing several different approaches to "biblical inerrancy", then it is possible that the 'doctrine' labelling might be right for some but inappropriate for others.

Might the article need more care on where the word 'doctrine' is applied?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Feline Hymnic for including me in this discussion. It appears we may consider conflating "doctrine" and "teaching". I have no objection at this point in the discussion, and I prefer clarity over potentially loaded words. In this case, if we present "Biblical inerrancy" as a teaching (or doctrine), then I think it's vitally important to associate that with some notable person, group, denomination, or movement. In short, a teaching begs a teacher. Rklawton (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into fuzzy lines; You can't have a private doctrine, you have to tell someone about it, otherwise it's just a notion. If you have only one student, and you tell them your teaching, then it becomes a doctrine. If you want to say that you have to be an authority to be able to certify doctrines, fair enough; I don't agree, but for me it's no big deal. I'm not attached to the use of the term, it is just a convenient handle for me to refer to an element of a belief system.

The thing about biblical inerrancy is this (AIUI): if you are going to teach (as all Protestants do) that no priests are necessary, that the Bible should be published in translation, and that ordinary people can work out their own salvation using only the Bible as their guide; then you need a doctrine (or teaching, or element of your belief system) that says at minimum that the Bible is a reliable guide. It's a direct consequence of the view that you don't need priests, which I believe comes straight from Luther.

Now I believe that 'reliable guide' doctrine is called infallibility. But it is my understanding that inerrancy is a stronger claim - that there are no falsehoods in the Bible, effectively. That is what leads to views like Young earth, whereby the Universe is just 5,000 years old. I am trying to find support for the position that inerrancy and infallibility are two different things (or doctrines, if you like).

Incidentally, while I find the inerrancy 'doctrine' remarkable, I find it even more remarkable that some people ascribe this inerrancy only to one edition of the Bible - the KJV. That seems a bit hard on those Protestants who only speak Dutch, for example! So I think inerrancy leads directly to nuttiness; infallibility appears a more reasonable attempt to explain how things can work without priests.

Rklawton I agree that a 'doctrine' has to be taught by someone. I don't happen to know who is considered to have first expounded the 'notions' of infallibility and inerrancy respectively.

MrDemeanour (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "infallible" applies to a decision process whereas "inerrant" applies to stated facts. To wit, some claim Jesus was infallible and some claim the Bible is inerrant. Rklawton (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Rklawton. Does that mean that the article on Biblical infallibility is eligible for deletion? How do I convince the people who edit that article? MrDemeanour (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My intention isn't to delete this article but rather to either leave out the idea of "doctrine" or to attribute it to a person, group, or organization. I oppose just calling it "doctrine" and leaving that designation without further explanation beyond "some people..." Rklawton (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Raped Dinah

Expecting constancy in the use of words during many centuries and different regions is too much too ask. They did not have the Merriam Webster online dictionary to sync their meanings. Raped Dinah is still called a virgin in the Bible. I don't remember precisely is she was called an almah or a betulah, anyway the English translation is virgin. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Origen of Alexandria

the Origen section may be incomplete, in 2012 was found in Bavaria, Germany a codices containing new homilies of the Psalms written or dictated by Origen in his time in Caesarea (Codex monacensis Graecus 314), in the homily of Psalm 77, he comments on the written errors, the lack of interpretation in contradictory passages, also and although it does not contribute to the article of the religious systematics of that time. I need to know if someone by will help me to write this information well, also to know the following sources are valid , if they are invalid help, I also inform that I do not speak English. thanks. Tuxzos22 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

religious epistemology*. Tuxzos22 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Tuxzos22 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

This is a mess of an article

This article is too convoluted, especially in the section "The Modern Protestant Discussion": one gets the impression that too many people wanted to include their preferred views, and quote their preferred authors. Can someone knowledgeable about modern Protestant discussions of the issue do something about this?

The section "Terms and Positions" also needs work. What are the last 3 paragraphs doing here? Are any of them worth keeping? (I would drop all three.) If some are worth keeping, where should they go in the article? Feedback please! MDJH (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have received no answer to my questions about the last 3 paragraphs of the section "Terms and Positions", I have removed two of the paragraphs. MDJH (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing Subsection on "Modern Catholic Discussion"

I am slowly editing the subsection on "Modern Catholic Discussion".

The edits I did so far:

1. Tagged some statements as needing citations.
2. Added material from a secondary source on Proventissimus Deus. I plan to delete the block quote from the Proventissimus Deus since in my opinion it is not necessary and its inclusion in the article might constitute original research, but I'd like to know the opinions of other editors first.

(UPDATE AS OF JUNE 12, 2023: I already deleted the block quotes from primary sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaivineOrodrim (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Other edits I plan to do:

1. Add sub-subsections on the various attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible and how they were addressed by the Magisterium. As my source material I plan to use the same source material I already cited. (For ease of access to the specific section cited, it is also available at the author's personal website here.)
2. Add a discussion on attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible from the point of view of the historicity of the events narrated in it.

Comments from other editors are welcome, as well as improvements on the work I already did. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)