JehovahsWitness wrote:I don’t mind stating for the record that I don’t believe it has any errors (historical, scientific) or any contradictions but we are not here to discuss that …
Personally, I do believe the autographs have “errors” in them. But even if it does have “errors”, it is meaningless to claim the Bible is errant. Instead, we can say the Bible is true, reliable, and authoritative.
For example, the Bible uses phenomenological language.
[Mat 5:45 KJV] 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.We know the sun does not orbit the earth, but the earth orbits the sun. So, technically the sun does not rise. It has an “error” in it. But, we can understand the meaning. The statement can be true, even though it technically has an “error” in it.
…and whether such inerrancy is important.
Since you said, “Agreed, and this is why it is extremely rare to see the words “infallibleâ€� and “inerrantâ€� in Jehovah’s Witness literature”, then the term inerrancy should not be important.
The purpose of the thread is not to argue if the Bible has errors in it, but if the term “inerrant” is necessary or it should be dropped. It looks like we’re in agreement with the latter.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985530#p985530
JehovahsWitness wrote:I think you are wrong to call figurative/metaphor/poetry “erroneous”.
In the Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy, it has to qualify what is meant by inerrancy by listing out exceptions, such as phenomenological language:
“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
The need to list out many exceptions to inerrancy hints at special pleading and thus renders the term useless.
The only “error” (as Galileo tried to make the Catholic authorities of his day understand) lies with the reader not knowing how language works.
Sure. But, if something is claimed to be inerrant by an omnipotent God, it’s held to a higher standard of how language typically works.
My understanding of your position (do correct me if I’m wrong) is you believe the bible is “true, reliable, and authoritative”, and when you say “true, reliable, and authoritative” you mean incorrect from its inception in certain details, facts and narratives, wrong whenever it makes statements regarding dates, locations and any historical or scientific/botanical/biological details which are unsupported by the scientific community, either because they should be taken figuratively (and writing figuratively is an “error”) or because the writers were simply mistaken. Other than all that it’s entirely “true, reliable, and authoritative”.
Incorrect assumption of how I view scripture.
In some aspects, I’m more conservative than many fundamentalists. I believe in a literal six days of creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal worldwide flood, a literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead, reject macroevolution, and believe the earth is at the center of the universe.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=985640#p985640