Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

Fervent · 2025-07-06T11:40:53-0500

trophy33 said:
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.

There can be some interplay, but critical inquiry doesn't require abandoning all established understanding. It doesn't require re-inventing the wheel, and there are always certain things that are unquestionable or else we would be mired in radical skepticism and just spinning our wheels.

trophy33 said:
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.

Dogma doesn't work the same in the Orthodox church as it does in the RCC. There isn't a defined set of church laws, though there is recognition of historic guardrails that the councils have set. Dogma, in so far as it is in operation in the Orthodox church, is more or less a recognition of the commitments that compromise puts one outside of the Christian faith. And it is not simply because it is a councilatory decree, but the reasoning of those councils and their Biblical support that matters. We don't need to re-adjudicate such things and keeping them in place doesn't restrict critical thought.

As for their Bibles, I'm not that well versed on what the various Orthodox churches use primarily, though I think it's more of an individual decision than them having officially recognized texts. And text critical methods are only somewhat scientific. Many of their opinions about authorship and the like are based on tradition rather than modern approaches to history, but that's more of a matter of epistemic priorities rather than whether or not they are capable of engaging in critical thinking.

An aversion to dogma is a very modern notion, and realistically when we get down to brass tacks our options are either dogma, circular arguments, or a myth of infinite regress. I'd rather be open about some reliance on dogma than pretend that there is none in my thinking, acknowledging what dogma lies at the root affords us clarity that denial robs us of.

ARBITER01 · 2025-07-06T11:42:10-0500

ARBITER01 said:
The historical accounts in the gospels can be different amongst the writers. Translation errors can create other issues also, but I've not seen any book in the NT at least, that contradicted another.

I think academia is more the problem here.

I'm going to requote myself here.

Apart from the gospels, I don't think there is any contradictions or mistakes in any of the epistles from the authors. The gospel writers though had to also rely upon various sources/people for their accounts beyond their own witness, so it shouldn't surprise us that the 4 would not always have the same exact accounts in them.

I think this inerrancy sort of requirement is an academic trap in many respects.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T11:49:04-0500

ARBITER01 said:
I'm going to requote myself here.

Apart from the gospels, I don't think there is any contradictions or mistakes in any of the epistles from the authors. The gospel writers though had to also rely upon various sources/people for their accounts beyond their own witness, so it shouldn't surprise us that the 4 would not always have the same exact accounts in them.

I think this inerrancy sort of requirement is an academic trap in many respects.

I think you are missing the problem. If God did not supernaturally protect Gospels from errors, there is no reason why should other parts of the Bible be free of errors. Just because we have only one version of for example epistles is by the nature of those writings. It is not a proof of anything.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T11:54:50-0500

Fervent said:
As for their Bibles, I'm not that well versed on what the various Orthodox churches use primarily, though I think it's more of an individual decision than them having officially recognized texts.

When I was looking for the "perfect" text of the Greek New Testament like a decade ago, I studied also the Orthodox versions. They have nothing similar to protestant textual criticism. They use traditional church versions or the protestant versions.

Something closest to critical text would be probably Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Byzantine family (I had this printed when I preferred the Majority text before I switched to the Minority text), but this was their own effort and it is not being updated.

Fervent · 2025-07-06T11:58:57-0500

trophy33 said:
When I was looking for the "perfect" text of the Greek New Testament like a decade ago, I studied also the Orthodox versions. They have nothing similar to protestant textual criticism. They use traditional church versions or the protestant versions.

Something closest to critical text would be probably Robinson-Pierpont edition of the Byzantine family (I had this printed when I preferred the Majority text before I switched to the Minority text), but this was their own effort.

This is somewhat unsurprising, because the Orthodox aren't interested in a "perfect" text nor do they place their trust in the "autographs" or original inspiration in the manner that Protestants do. For the Orthodox, it is canonization that matters and it is the traditional versions that achieved canonical status. So why upset the apple cart by trying to recover the originals?

ARBITER01 · 2025-07-06T12:00:28-0500

trophy33 said:
I think you are missing the problem. If God did not supernaturally protect Gospels from errors, there is no reason why should other parts of the Bible be free of errors. Just because we have only one version of for example epistles is by the nature of those writings. It is not a proof of anything.

And I think you are imposing a standard on the written word that GOD didn't.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:03:28-0500

Fervent said:
This is somewhat unsurprising, because the Orthodox aren't interested in a "perfect" text nor do they place their trust in the "autographs" or original inspiration in the manner that Protestants do. For the Orthodox, it is canonization that matters and it is the traditional versions that achieved canonical status. So why upset the apple cart by trying to recover the originals?

The "perfect" was about my effort (before I found out it cannot be achieved and gave up), not about the Orthodox effort.

I am not sure if I understand your point, but if you are saying that Orthodox Christians are not interested in the original text, but in the church text (they do not care too much if it is original or not), then I agree. This is not attractive to me, though. I have more "scientific" mind in this regard.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:04:30-0500

ARBITER01 said:
And I think you are imposing a standard on the written word that GOD didn't.

I have no idea what is this sentence supposed to mean.

ARBITER01 · 2025-07-06T12:06:28-0500

trophy33 said:
I have no idea what is this sentence supposed to mean.

Where in scripture does it say that GOD's word is inerrant and infallible?

Fervent · 2025-07-06T12:07:32-0500

trophy33 said:
The "perfect" was about my effort, not about the Orthodox effort.

I understand, though I put quotes around perfect and autographs because those are distinctly modern ideas.

trophy33 said:
I am not sure if I understand your point, but if you are saying that Orthodox Christians are not interested in the original text, but in the church text (they do not care too much if it is original or not), then I agree. This is not attractive to me, though. I have more "scientific" mind in this regard.

It's a matter of belief about what gives the text its authority, rather than simple disinterest. The Orthodox see the authority of the text coming not from some magical theory of original inspiration and impeccableness, but because of its role in the church and the canonical versions of the text. As a consequence, what was in the originals is only of marginal interest to Orthodox because the authoritative versions of the texts are the ones that managed to achieve canonical status. Though the Orthodox tend to have a broader view of canon as well, which is why they accept a variety of canons depending on which Orthodox church we're speaking of.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:11:42-0500

ARBITER01 said:
Where in scripture does it say that GOD's word is inerrant and infallible?

Why are you asking me? I am not playing for the inerrancy team.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:13:28-0500

Fervent said:
It's a matter of belief about what gives the text its authority, rather than simple disinterest. The Orthodox see the authority of the text coming not from some magical theory of original inspiration and impeccableness, but because of its role in the church and the canonical versions of the text. As a consequence, what was in the originals is only of marginal interest to Orthodox because the authoritative versions of the texts are the ones that managed to achieve canonical status. Though the Orthodox tend to have a broader view of canon as well, which is why they accept a variety of canons depending on which Orthodox church we're speaking of.

In that case we can change Scriptures at our will in time if it is useful for Christians. Or even rewrite it?

Fervent · 2025-07-06T12:16:40-0500

trophy33 said:
In that case we can change Scriptures at our will in time if it is useful for Christians. Or even rewrite it?

Nope, because we have fairly secure texts for the canonical versions. The differences in canon across the churches is on inclusion of additional books like 3 & 4 Maccabees. In fact, your objection seems rather bizarre for someone championing text criticism that places scholars as the judges of what should and shouldn't be in the Bible especially given the subjective nature of most text critical criteria.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:18:20-0500

Fervent said:
Nope, because we have fairly secure texts for the canonical versions. The differences in canon across the churches is on inclusion of additional books like 3 & 4 Maccabees. In fact, your objection seems rather bizarre for someone championing text criticism that places scholars as the judges of what should and shouldn't be in the Bible especially given the subjective nature of most text critical criteria.

If we do not care what was in the originals, because it depends on what text has been useful for the church throughout centuries, then it is not bizarre at all to ask whether we can change the Scriptures as is useful for us today.

ARBITER01 · 2025-07-06T12:18:47-0500

trophy33 said:
Why are you asking me? I am not playing for the inerrancy team.

I re-read you original statement,....

If God did not supernaturally protect Gospels from errors, there is no reason why should other parts of the Bible be free of errors.

And I disagree.

The words of the OT prophets are considered pure, why wouldn't the epistles of Paul, Peter and others not be also, since they originated from 1 source and were not taken from multiple sources other themselves like the gospels?

Fervent · 2025-07-06T12:24:12-0500

trophy33 said:
If we do not care what was in the originals, because it depends on what text has been useful for the church throughout centuries, then it is not bizarre at all to ask whether we can change the Scriptures as is useful for us today.

You're misrepresenting what I've said, perhaps you don't understand what I mean by its role in the church because it is not simply usefulness. The canonization process was an organic process where the church formed around the texts and a clear set of texts came to be the primary sources for various church functions. The authority of the Biblical texts in Orthodoxy comes from its history, not its pragmatic value. This is one of the reasons that venerating tradition is important, because failure to do so leaves us spinning in the wind or trying to reify texts that are far less solid than we might want to pretend. The Orthodox text is far more stable, which you took as a defect earlier, so why do you now object that the underlying viewpoints that produces such stability is too malleable?

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:27:26-0500

Fervent said:
You're misrepresenting what I've said, perhaps you don't understand what I mean by its role in the church because it is not simply usefulness. The canonization process was an organic process where the church formed around the texts and a clear set of texts came to be the primary sources for various church functions. The authority of the Biblical texts in Orthodoxy comes from its history, not its pragmatic value. This is one of the reasons that venerating tradition is important, because failure to do so leaves us spinning in the wind or trying to reify texts that are far less solid than we might want to pretend. The Orthodox text is far more stable, which you took as a defect earlier, so why do you now object that the underlying viewpoints that produces such stability is too malleable?

Sorry, but I am not interested in Orthodoxy or in their views. You began to talk about them so I tried to answer your posts somehow, in regard to my points and views, but it is probably better to just let it be.

trophy33 · 2025-07-06T12:29:04-0500

ARBITER01 said:
The words of the OT prophets are considered pure, why wouldn't the epistles of Paul, Peter and others not be also...

Putting aside that this is logical fallacy, who considers the "OT prophets" pure and what is this supposed to mean, exactly?

Fervent · 2025-07-06T12:33:00-0500

trophy33 said:
Sorry, but I am not interested in Orthodoxy or in their views. You began to talk about them so I tried to answer your posts somehow, in regard to my points and views, but it is probably better to just let it be.

Fair enough, I appreciate the respectful discussion. I personally think there's a lot of mileage that can be gotten out of Orthodoxy and a lot that Western Christians can learn from our Orthodox brethren but I know not everyone holds such interests.

Clare73 · 2025-07-06T13:15:40-0500

trophy33 said:
I think you are missing the problem. If God did not supernaturally protect Gospels from errors, there is no reason why should other parts of the Bible be free of errors. Just because we have only one version of for example epistles is by the nature of those writings.
It is not a proof of anything.

Looks like proof of unbelief to me.

You either believe Scripture, or you don't.

Your choice.

I choose to believe it.

Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Similar threads