Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Did all the parties arrive at the same time? Did anyone go twice?

Did anyone just make up an explanation without any attempt at exegesis?

 

[Fervent]

Why does it matter? I recall a number of situations where the inerrancy of scripture was what people relied on to be saved. Like it was impossible to believe in Jesus based on knowing Jesus from Him indwelling you.

To situations like that, it might be a matter of life or death.

And how many have lost their faith when they could no longer in good conscience accept the idea? Is it not a matter of life and death with them, as well?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And how many have lost their faith when they could no longer in good conscience accept the idea? Is it not a matter of life and death with them, as well?

The thing is, the bible itself acknowledges it has errors in it.

The Jeremiah verse says it explicitly, and the Revelation verse says it implicitly because laws are added because of transgression.

 

[Fervent]

The thing is, the bible itself acknowledges it has errors in it.

Yeah, and most reviews of the literature of the church fathers tends to involve in an anachronistic approach where select statements that aren't addressing what modern students are asking are taken as proof positive of agreement. It tends to be a matter of all-or-nothing reasoning that most who defend inerrancy do so on. Whether they are inerrant or not, they are supremely trustworthy.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah, and most reviews of the literature of the church fathers tends to involve in an anachronistic approach where select statements that aren't addressing what modern students are asking are taken as proof positive of agreement. It tends to be a matter of all-or-nothing reasoning that most who defend inerrancy do so on. Whether they are inerrant or not, they are supremely trustworthy.

They are trustworthy, just apply the teachings and see the fruit. If there are multiple variants of a text, test them all and continue with the one with the best fruit.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Like I already said, I don't think there is a problem with the text other than people possibly misunderstanding the time period involved with the Passover, though I haven't looked to see what possible variants are available in the section of text.

Whether the stone was already moved (John) or not (Mark) when Mary got there has little to do with misunderstanding the time period of Passover.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, but at this point what do we do. Hold them both in doubt? Choose one or the other to be more true? Try to reconcile them as an inerrentist might? I think the best thing to do is to enter into the world of the narrative as best we can. When in John go with it as is. Same with Mark.

I guess we do not need to do anything with it. Just acknowledging that the biblical texts are not perfect and continuing with our life.

Many church dogmas have been proven wrong in time and Christians are still here. Core Christianity does not need much, just like 10 sentences of really important stuff.

 

[trophy33]

For Protestants, it is a major hurdle to overcome because of doctine like Sola Scriptura

I think this is a common misconception among American Christians, because of the culture influenced strongly by evangelicals and by the Seventh Day Adventists.

More traditional protestant denominations worldwide have accepted evolution or errors in the Bible, textual criticism long time ago. Before the RCC or Orthodoxy. The standard critical text of the New Testament is made by the German Bible society and by protestants.

Orthodox Christianity does not have this level of critical thinking, it is based on traditional texts and traditions they call sacred and the RCC is based on too many dogmas to apply critical thinking where needed. That is why it is actually a protestant thing. Protestants can change any doctrine that was proven wrong, after some few tears and after a lot of debate. They are not fixed in some previous tradition or past dogmas. One of the principle of the reformed church is "the church is always reforming".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Whether the stone was already moved (John) or not (Mark) when Mary got there has little to do with misunderstanding the time period of Passover.

I checked - In John's Gospel, Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb and finds the stone already rolled away (John 20:1). However, Mark's Gospel also describes the stone as already moved when the women arrive - they were worried about who would roll it away, but when they looked up, they saw it had already been rolled back (Mark 16:3-4). So both Gospels actually agree that the stone was moved before the women's arrival.

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) appear to present the Last Supper as a Passover meal, suggesting Jesus was crucified on Passover day itself. John's Gospel, however, indicates Jesus was crucified on the "day of Preparation for the Passover" (John 19:14), implying he died before Passover began.

This chronological question has been debated by scholars for centuries. Some propose solutions like different calendar systems being used, while others see theological rather than strictly chronological intentions in the Gospel writers' presentations.

I think the two ideas ought to be kept separate.

 

[Fervent]

I think this is a common misconception among American Christians, because of the culture influenced strongly by evangelicals and by the Seventh Day Adventists.

Perhaps, my background is deeply evangelical so a lot of my interactions have been with people who are fairly insistent on doctrine like the sui generis nature of the Scriptures, the perspicuity of Scripture, a rigid understanding of the canan to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. None of which are conducive to anything approaching a critical assessment of the texts.

More traditional protestant denominations worldwide have accepted evolution or errors in the Bible, textual criticism long time ago. Before the RCC or Orthodoxy. The standard critical text of the New Testament is made by the German Bible society and by protestants.

German theology is notorious for producing liberal theology, so is it the traditional Lutherans in Germany or the liberals you're speaking of?

Orthodox Christianity does not have this level of critical thinking, it is based on traditional texts and traditions they call sacred and the RCC is based on too many dogmas to apply critical thinking where needed. That is why it is actually a protestant thing. Protestants can change any doctrine that was proven wrong, after some few tears and after a lot of debate. They are not fixed in some previous tradition or past dogmas. One of the principle of the reformed church is "the church is always reforming".

Orthodox Christianity has a great deal of critical thinking, yes they have a high esteem for the writings of the fathers and they haven't really systematized their theology but it is a very rich source since many of the fathers themselves were philosophically adept. Tradition, in the Orthodox church, is not solely about the past. It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the church, and continues to develop. Don't let their veneration of traditional rites and ceremonies fool you, there is a lot to be said for the intellectual integrity of the Orthodox church.

 

[trophy33]

Perhaps, my background is deeply evangelical so a lot of my interactions have been with people who are fairly insistent on doctrine like the sui generis nature of the Scriptures, the perspicuity of Scripture, a rigid understanding of the canan to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. None of which are conducive to anything approaching a critical assessment of the texts.

About 40% of Americans believe in young earth (less then 10,000 years old) and about 10% of Americans believe the Earth is flat. In comparison about 2% of Europeans believe in young earth. I think it is clear that American views about the Bible will be quite different from the rest of the world.

German theology is notorious for producing liberal theology, so is it the traditional Lutherans in Germany or the liberals you're speaking of?

You mean who is behind the Nestle Aland - critical edition of the New Testament? Most members of the committee have been from the EKD, one is Orthodox and one is from the church of England. One is from the USA - Evangelical Free Church of America. But there are also various institutions involved, like the United Bible Societies or German universities.

Orthodox Christianity has a great deal of critical thinking

Not when compared to protestantism.

 

[Fervent]

About 40% of Americans believe in young earth (less then 10,000 years old) and about 10% of Americans believe the Earth is flat. In comparison about 2% of Europeans believe in young earth. I think it is clear that American views about the Bible will be quite different from the rest of the world.

Yeah, certainly. And sadly it's likely the view of the Bible that is dictating those other numbers.

You mean who is behind the Nestle Aland - critical edition of the New Testament? Most members of the committee have been from the EKD, one is Orthodox and one is from the church of England. One is from the USA - Evangelical Free Church of America.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying about the German Bible Society.

Not when compared to protestantism. Protestantism or reformed churches are the only branch of Christianity that is not bound by some past teachings.

I wouldn't conflate not being tied to past teachings with critical thinking, and the teachngs that the Orthodox are tied to are fairly few because their approach to theology tends to be apophatic...reserving cataphatic theology almost exclusively to councilatory decrees which, IMO, disagreement would render a group outside of the Christian faith. The domain of acceptable theologoumenon is quite broad, and the non-negotiables involve compromising the divinity and person of Christ.

 

[trophy33]

I wouldn't conflate not being tied to past teachings with critical thinking

It is interdependent. If we have some self-censorship because we see something from the past as "sacred tradition", it restricts our ability to use critical thinking.

If we see something as dogma, because some church council or pope declared it so, it is even worse. Does the orthodox church have some serious textual criticism scholarship? As far as I know, their Greek editions are based on church tradition, not on scientific examination.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So both Gospels actually agree that the stone was moved before the women's arrival.

Right, my error

Some propose solutions like different calendar systems being used, while others see theological rather than strictly chronological intentions in the Gospel writers' presentations.

I think the two ideas ought to be kept separate.

I agree since the Gospels were shaped by theological concerns. The lambs were actually slain on the day of preparation. But blood on the doors on Passover. Also the Passover meal in which John omits the institution of the Eucharist. Instead washes feet.

 

[Clare73]

Whether the stone was already moved (John) or not (Mark) when Mary got there has little to do with misunderstanding the time period of Passover.

Could Mary have gone twice?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Could Mary have gone twice?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I’d say the idea that Mary went to the tomb twice isn’t Church teaching. Is there any specific idea that you use to reconcile the different versions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the 1980s and ’90s, a controversy swirled within the Evangelical world over the question of biblical inerrancy. A common claim during that time was that the doctrine of inerrancy was an innovation of late nineteenth-century Princeton theologians who were attempting to respond to higher biblical criticism. Before then, the claim continued, Christians did not believe the Bible to be without error, but only “infallible.” It was a distinction that made a big difference. The Bible is accurate in matters of faith and practice, but not without error in other areas, such as science or history.

Though the word “inerrancy” may have been new, the idea was not. How the Early Church fathers described Scripture sounds exactly like what the Princeton theologians meant by inerrancy. The same, in fact, can also be said about medieval, Reformation, and even modern theologians before the rise of theological liberalism.

The attack on the idea of biblical inerrancy 40 years ago is essentially the same as the attack on biblical authority that emerged during the Enlightenment. Once reason and science were elevated as the primary arbitrators of truth, it was necessary to reject things like the biblical claims about miracles. Aligning Scripture, particularly Genesis, with accepted science required assuming that the Bible was not reporting literal history or attempting to make scientific claims.

Continued below.

https://www.breakpoint.org/inerrancy-under-attack-again/

Inerrancy is a superfluous and unneeded term. It only seems necessary among certain folks who think the Bible 'has' to be defended against physical materialism. It doesn't.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Could Mary have gone twice?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That question was resolved. My error. The stone was removed in all accounts.

But did Mary encounter an angel (Matthew), a young man (Mark), two men (Luke) or two angels (John).
Of course the men were probably angels. But were there one or two?
Why would Luke and John add one or Matthew and Mark leave one out?

 

[trophy33]

Matthew and Mark place the cleansing of the temple near the end of Jesus' ministry, while John places it at the beginning.

Oh yes, classic rhetorical question "could it happen twice"? Which is becoming absurd, because half of the NT would need to happen twice, three times or even four times.

 

[Clare73]

I’d say the idea that Mary went to the tomb twice isn’t Church teaching. Is there any specific idea that you use to reconcile the different versions?

I don't remember. . .but each writer does not always include the whole record.
You have to interweave the accounts to get the complete picture.