I believe we have also been too influenced by the Greek way of thinking and need to balance it with the Hebrew way of thought.
Inerrancy is one manifestation of the Greek thinking and has been influenced by Plato’s theory of forms.
The theory of Forms or theory of Ideas is a philosophical theory, concept, or world-view, attributed to Plato, that the physical world is not as real or true as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas. According to this theory, ideas in this sense, often capitalized and translated as “Ideas” or “Forms”, are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Like the allegory of the cave, the translations are the shadows, and the autographs are the ideal, inerrant form. We can only see the shadows (translations) and the ideal form (autographs) cannot be directly observed.
Greek cosmology was based on the assumption the circle was the perfect shape so everything in cosmology must use circles.
The ancient Greeks developed, over a period of centuries, an elaborate cosmology. By cosmology is meant the structure and the origin of the universe. The earliest views, going back to the time of Homer and Hesiod (the 8th century BC) postulated a flat or cylindrical earth located in a hemispherical cosmos that surrounded or envelopped it. But by the time of the thinkers associated with the legendary and mythical Pythagorus (560-480BC, app.), the view became widely accepted that the earth was a sphere in a universe which was itself also fully spherical. This claim was based both on theoretical grounds — (i) the belief that the circle or sphere was the most perfect of geometric shapes, and therefore appropriate for the earth and the cosmos, which were the most important of objects, and (ii) on practical grounds — the observations of a ship and its mast as the vessell receded beyond the horizon.
https://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Cosmo … round.html
Likewise, Christians assume God and the Bible must be “perfect”.
Because of the insistence that orbits must be circular, they developed elaborate theories of how the planets move by creating circles on top of other circles.
Long before the time of Copernicus, the Greek astronomer Claudius Ptolemy created a model of all the planets’ observed celestial motions. The model involved combinations of perfect circles rotating with uniform speed. Ptolemy explained the apparent “looping motion” of the planets by placing the center of one rotating circle, called the epicycle, which carried the planet, on another rotating circle, called the deferent, so that together the motions of the two circles produced the observed looping motion of the planet.
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harva … le-machine
The epicycle theory actually worked remarkably well and could explain planetary motion. And it could not be disproven until many centuries later when telescopes were invented.
Inerrancy is similar to the epicycle theory where qualifications (circles) are added to the definition of inerrancy to keep the doctrine intact. At first, inerrancy was not limited to the autographs, but applied to all scripture (including translations). Then came along Biblical textual criticism. It showed at a minimum there were copyist errors. So, a circle had to be added – inerrancy only applied to the autographs. Attacks on the autographs were made by pointing out other discrepencies in the text, so more qualifications were added. Now, in the definitive statement on the inerrancy of scripture, the Chicago statement, it lists many other circles that are added.
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- … -inerrancy
Having all these qualifications (circles) does not disprove inerrancy, but it does show there is an inherent weakness.
As far as I know, in the Hebraic view of scriptures, they never viewed the Bible as inerrant (as defined by the Greek way of thinking). It never occurred to them to approach the scriptures with the point of view that God or the scriptures must conform to the ideal, perfect concept.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985672#p985672