JehovahsWitness wrote:To claim the bible contains fabricated narratives and manmade doctrine undermines its truthfulness and reliability regardless of claims such fabrications are “unimportant” or “irrelevant to salvation”.
I’ve made no claim either way. I’ve claimed it is not necessary to believe in inerrancy to be a Christian and to accept the Bible as authoritative.
Even if the Bible has errors, it is still true and reliable and trustworthy. This is obviously true because when people generally talk about the Bible, they are referring to translations. We regard Bible translations as true, reliable, and trustworthy — even when they have errors in them (at a minimum they have copyist errors).
When people speak about the Bible, the only time it refers to the autographs is when talking about inerrancy. Since the autographs do not exist, it is a doctrine rooted in the ethereal.
Rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy does not mean we claim the Bible is full of errors so we can just throw out the entire Bible. Ironically, it is only those who adhere to inerrancy that would need to throw out the Bible if there is a single error in it.
It is possible to have a high view of scripture while not accepting inerrancy. As I’ve pointed out, C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright both have this position. These men are well respected across denominational lines.
We can go on and discuss how to approach the Bible if it’s not inerrant. But before we go there, what is your position on the question in the OP? Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative? Can the Bible be authoritative while still have errors in it?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=986362#p986362