I’ll summarize my arguments…
I argue it is not necessary for the Bible to be inerrant and still be authoritative.
The layperson view of inerrancy is the Bible is without any errors. They typically mean a Bible translation and are not thinking of the autographs. However, this is not how it is defined. The Chicago statement on Biblical inerrancy, considered the authoritative view on inerrancy, says inerrancy only applies to the autographs.
“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture,”
http://www.alliancenet.org/the-chicago- … -inerrancy
More sources affirms this definition.
I could find only a couple of groups that defines inerrancy without qualification.
It is widely accepted the translations have errors in them. At a minimum they have copyist errors. One of the top proponents of inerrancy, Norman Geisler, also acknowledges this.
So, Bible translations can be considered authoritative without being inerrant.
There is no general consensus of what inerrancy is. And definitions generally include many clauses to them.
Inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar.
Inerrancy does not exclude the use either of figures of speech or of a given literary genre.
Inerrancy does not demand historical or semantic precision.
Inerrancy does not demand the technical language of modern science.
Inerrancy does not require verbal exactness in the citation of the Old Testament by the New.
Inerrancy does not demand that the Logia Jesu (the sayings of Jesus) contain the ipsissima verba (the exact words) of Jesus, only the ipsissima vox (the exact voice).
Inerrancy does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account or of combined accounts where those are involved.
Inerrancy does not demand the infallibility or inerrancy of the noninspired sources used by biblical writers.
https://www.efca.org/blog/understanding … -inerrancy
First, as we noted above, the Bible’s view of inspiration is not a sort of mechanical “dictation theory.”
Second, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require that we impose upon the Bible standards of accuracy and evaluation that are alien to it.
Third, the doctrine of inerrancy does not require the Bible to have been transmitted without mistakes in the copying process.
Fourth, when properly understood the doctrine of inerrancy does not entail the necessity of rational proof that the Bible is without error.
Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not close off interpretive discussion.
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a … debate.php
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. 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
These exceptions are like the addition of epicycles in Greek cosmology to hold their theory together. This hints at special pleading and points to incorrect assumptions.
The term “inerrancy� doesn’t work because, in the words of Roger Olson, the very definition of the word succumbs to “the death of a thousand qualifications.�
https://www.missioalliance.org/why-bibl … esnt-work/
One common qualification to inerrancy is that the Bible must be correctly interpreted. But, who has the “correct” interpretation of the Bible?
There are several Christian denominations that do not accept the doctrine of inerrancy. Fuller theological seminary, a conservative evangelical seminary, has a nuanced view of inerrancy. They seem to reject it on one hand, but is not willing to abandon the term.
There are also several apologists that do not place a high value on the doctrine of inerrancy, including William Lane Craig and C.S. Lewis. Biblical scholar, N.T. Wright is not an inerrantist. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer also rejected inerrancy. However, all of these men have a high view of scripture.
“Bonhoeffer did not believe in biblical inerrancy, but followed Karl Barth’s view that Scripture is true, even if it is not empirically accurate.”
https://www.equip.org/article/troubling … -theology/
The primary proof text of the doctrine is 2 Timothy 3:16. I argue it is weak support for inerrancy. Another proof text is 2 Peter 1:21. I argue it is a stretch to use this to support inerrancy of the Bible.
The doctrine is also divisive and potentially damaging.
So, I believe the term inerrancy should no longer be used. It is a term that is misused, misunderstood, full of qualifications, meaningless, unnecessary, divisive, and damaging. It is time to jettison the doctrine of inerrancy.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=986452#p986452