What are your views on Biblical Inerrancy?

[ShadowRocket]

A comprehensive view where everything stated in the Bible, including matters relating to science and history, is without error?  Or a limited view relating only to faith and morals?

[Antonio the Sixth]

why do we need 3 threads on the Bible in the same week

[°Leprechaun]

A comprehensive view where everything stated in the Bible, including matters relating to science and history, is without error?  Or a limited view relating only to faith and morals?

The movie starring Spencer Tracy, "Inherit the Wind", was one of the best movies to refute the orthodox beliefs of inerrancy and literalism. As pointed out in the movie it is big mistake to believe that the sun stood still.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

[°Leprechaun]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

If you don't mind my saying..
Most people reject this opinion.
There is literally no good reason for such a world view.
Think of the consequences of such a point of view:
Literal hellfire for most good people, rejection of science, toxic divisions of people, not to mention the harm it does to people who hold to such a belief.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

"Fedora" video but good for this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

[°Leprechaun]

"Fedora" video but good for this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

I am aware that some people claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible; I have never seen any evidence or argument in favor of such an assertion. Rather it is a statement of belief with nothing to back it up.

[LabourJersey]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

How do you reconcile Genesis 1: 1-11 with Genesis 2:5-8, which describes a (mildly) different account of creation?

[JGibson]

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not the inerrant word of God.

[Skill and Chance]

Inerrant, but often intended non-literally, and never intended to be quantitative.  Doing precise math is an important part of our lives, but it just wasn't for ancient people.  An ancient literate person generally thought in terms of 1-10, then perhaps in multiples of 10 to 100, and then a general category of many that included all larger numbers.  For an illiterate person, it may well have just been 1, 2, 3, and many.  Hence 70 times 7 doesn't mean you literally forgive someone exactly 490 sins, and the ages in Genesis aren't additive but reflect an indefinitely long time it took to reach the present state. 

[jojoju1998]

The Bible is  infallible when it comes to Salvation's sake. But not inerrant.

The belief that the Bible is inerrant in ALL matters was never a core Christian doctrine until the 19th century with the rise of Fundamentalism.

And besides to reduce the Bible to a Science Textbook takes away it's.. theological depth.

[ShadowRocket]

So to answer my own question, I definitely lean towards a more limited or narrow view.  In large part due to difficulty regarding how issues related to the historicity of the Exodus, Conquest, United Monarchy, etc. can be reconciled with total inerrancy.

I suppose maybe one solution would be to say inerrancy extends to those stories having some historical basis while acknowledging the artistic license involved in writhing those texts.

[Georg Ebner]

The Bible is  infallible when it comes to Salvation's sake. But not inerrant.

The belief that the Bible is inerrant in ALL matters was never a core Christian doctrine until the 19th century with the rise of Fundamentalism.

And besides to reduce the Bible to a Science Textbook takes away it's.. theological depth.

Exactly. In Catholicism BÁNEZ was the first*, who taught this - because He was some kind of a proto-L.STRAUSSian: There is the liberal (=bad) humanism with its critical studies of the Bible, which brought us protestantism and civilWars; here is the hard (=good) neoScholasticism, that brings us certainty&safety.
Although He was immediately strongly opposed by other catholic theoLogians, the political desire in the era of BODIN and HOBBES favoured Him, of course.

*Yes, St.THOMAS/Aquinas (similar some other Gothic Scholastics) described the HOLY SPIRIT as "auctor" and the human authors as "instrumenta"; yet, He did so not in His Catena Aurea, but en passant in a book on another theme. And it is not as clear as it sounds to people based on American fundamentalism: as an inDeterminist He did certainly not believe in the Evangelists as pure funnels without free consciousness.

[Blue3]

A comprehensive view where everything stated in the Bible, including matters relating to science and history, is without error?  Or a limited view relating only to faith and morals?

Very silly. From "four corners of the earth" language to actual conflicting narratives in the Gospels, it's just super silly.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A lot of people have a caricatured view of what inerrancy means. It doesn't mean, for example, that there isn't figurative language in Scripture.

I find talk of "inerrancy" or "infallibility" misguided though. The ultimate purpose of Scripture is not correct information, but spiritual and moral transformation. Sometimes the former may be suspended for the sake of the latter. As in the works of Plato, often truth is revealed through dialogue, rather than a statement in isolation.

[longtimelurker]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

What do you make of Leviticus 11:19, which says that bats are birds?  Or Leviticus 11:20 which says that insects "walk on all fours."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Inerrant, but often intended non-literally, and never intended to be quantitative.  Doing precise math is an important part of our lives, but it just wasn't for ancient people.  An ancient literate person generally thought in terms of 1-10, then perhaps in multiples of 10 to 100, and then a general category of many that included all larger numbers.  For an illiterate person, it may well have just been 1, 2, 3, and many.  Hence 70 times 7 doesn't mean you literally forgive someone exactly 490 sins, and the ages in Genesis aren't additive but reflect an indefinitely long time it took to reach the present state. 

Someone forgot to tell Pythagoras and Archimedes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

What do you make of Leviticus 11:19, which says that bats are birds?  Or Leviticus 11:20 which says that insects "walk on all fours."

This is an issue of translation of language and categories.  "Bird" and "insect" are actually the same Hebrew word in this passage. It just means "flying creature" which a bat obviously is.  Linnaean classification isn't operative here.

One would imagine that the ancient Hebrews were well acquainted with basic insect anatomy, given they must have encountered them more often than most people do today, and this passage allows certain kinds of them as food. "On-four" may just be an adverbial idiom that isn't limited in meaning to that specific number.

[longtimelurker]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

What do you make of Leviticus 11:19, which says that bats are birds?  Or Leviticus 11:20 which says that insects "walk on all fours."

This is an issue of translation of language and categories.  "Bird" and "insect" are actually the same Hebrew word in this passage. It just means "flying creature" which a bat obviously is.  Linnaean classification isn't operative here.

One would imagine that the ancient Hebrews were well acquainted with basic insect anatomy, given they must have encountered them more often than most people do today, and this passage allows certain kinds of them as food. "On-four" may just be an adverbial idiom that isn't limited in meaning to that specific number.

It's actually more complicated than that.  Which is why we should hesitate to take the Bible literally.  Note that I just used the word literally, which has a different shade of meaning from saying that the Bible is inerrant.

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/94560/why-does-torah-consider-bats-as-birds

[Diabolical Materialism]

Bit silly to believe in Biblical inerrancy and not be able to read Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

[jojoju1998]

Bit silly to believe in Biblical inerrancy and not be able to read Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

The priest at my church says he took Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic while he was in Seminary.

He said Aramaic was the hardest language he learned.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Bit silly to believe in Biblical inerrancy and not be able to read Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

The priest at my church says he took Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic while he was in Seminary.

He said Aramaic was the hardest language he learned.

Catholic?

[jojoju1998]

Bit silly to believe in Biblical inerrancy and not be able to read Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

The priest at my church says he took Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic while he was in Seminary.

He said Aramaic was the hardest language he learned.

Catholic?

Yep. Studied at the only Pontifical Seminary in the US. The Pontifical College Josephinium in Ohio. He even said, that Pope Benedict himself, before he became Pope was a Visiting Professor during his studies at the Seminary.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm a strict believer in Biblical Inerrancy, including a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.

What do you make of Leviticus 11:19, which says that bats are birds?  Or Leviticus 11:20 which says that insects "walk on all fours."

This is an issue of translation of language and categories.  "Bird" and "insect" are actually the same Hebrew word in this passage. It just means "flying creature" which a bat obviously is.  Linnaean classification isn't operative here.

One would imagine that the ancient Hebrews were well acquainted with basic insect anatomy, given they must have encountered them more often than most people do today, and this passage allows certain kinds of them as food. "On-four" may just be an adverbial idiom that isn't limited in meaning to that specific number.

It's actually more complicated than that.  Which is why we should hesitate to take the Bible literally.  Note that I just used the word literally, which has a different shade of meaning from saying that the Bible is inerrant.

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/94560/why-does-torah-consider-bats-as-birds

Ironically it's possible to take people too literally when they say they take something literally.

[Del Tachi]

The Bible is many things (i.e., books of poetry, history, law, prophecy, etc.)  That it is meant to be taken literally is not even a claim it makes about itself.