Talk:Problems with biblical inerrancy

Literalism or Inerrancy?
I've noticed that the page seems to conflate literalism and inerrancy as if they were the same thing. One of the biggest misconceptions about Fundamentalism is that a Fundamentalist is someone who takes the Bible literally. The truth is worse than this. What they do is take the Bible as if it is inerrant and this sometimes means deviating from the plain literal sense of the text in order to maintain inerrancy. An important example of this is with the early chapters of Genesis. To avoid conflicts with science and hence preserve inerrancy many Fundamentalists will avoid the plain sense of the text (which is a literal one). I put forward the suggestion that the page be changed to avoid this common error of equating inerrancy with a literal interpretation. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 79.71.105.101 / talk / contribs
 * Not only do I think that's a good idea, I think that it should be incorporated as a subheading. However, there are fundamentalists who take the Bible literally, and those who take it to be inerrant. Both situations are bad! Even worse are those who take the Bible to be both... --Eira undefined 06:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I have always been under the impression that the concept of Biblical Inerrancy encompasses a literal interpretation. The very concept of being "inerrant" means "without error", and any interpretation of the Bible as a metaphor would remove the concept of inerrancy.  For example, the literal interpretation of Genesis states that the world was created in 6 days, start to finish.  If you take a metaphorical interpretation, then the account described in Genesis is no longer a factually correct and accurate description of creation, which means it is no longer inerrant.  What that means is that, unless a given passage is specifically designated as being metaphorical, such as the parables told by Jesus, for the Bible to be inerrant, it must be literal.  While you are true that literalism and inerrancy are not the same, you cannot have inerrancy without literalism.  Also, your specific assertion that "To avoid conflicts with science and hence preserve inerrancy many Fundamentalists will avoid the plain sense of the text (which is a literal one)" directly misses the point that metaphors cannot be inerrant.  If God did not create the world in 6 days, exactly as described in the Bible, and given that the Bible at no point directly (or even indirectly) states that Genesis is not literal, then you must presume that everything that follows is metaphor (since there is no indication where metaphor ends and literalism begins).  Beyond that, it's hard to say that it's not literal given that imediately after creation and the Fall it gives a lineage from Adam on, which is expected to show--with other passages included--that Moses decended from Adam, thereby giving him authority from God.  A non-literal interpretation destroys the link from Adam to Moses, thereby eliminating any authority Moses had in dictating the will of God to the Israelites.  So, you have a choice: either it's not literal, and Moses is not the descendent of Adam, which removes his spiritual authority, and everything in the Bible that comes after becomes suspect; or it is literal, and God created the earth in 6 days as we know them.  As you see, literalism is required for inerrancy to be valid, because once you introduce metaphor, the entire book becomes subject to interpretation, rather than an authoritative work. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The BON is right, to the extent that it's a way to 'win a war" without really getting dirty. You say literalism = inerrant, and you can say "see, you say the earth has four corners, but it doesn't".  In reality, both literalists and innerants agree that there are parts of the bible that are obviously parables, stories, and metaphores.  The problem is, no one can agree which parts are which.  So when someone says he is a literalist, what he means is that the things he wants to be true are true, and other things are metaphores.  ;-)  What he means is he believes in a 6 day creation for some reason, but doesn't really think that Song of Solomon is about sex, but rather Isreal.  shrugs. [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot Calibrated! let the voting begin!  01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * But I'm not saying that literalism is the same as inerrant, because a book can be literal and still be erroneous. However, I am saying that the Bible must be literal (to an extent) to be inerrant.  Inerrant means "without error", and my contention stems from promoters of Biblical inerrancy claiming that the Bible is a perfect text that clearly explains the will of God for his followers.  In order for this to be true, the Bible must have some clear method of distinguishing factual information from metaphor.  Jesus' parables are a nice example of portions of the Bible that can be inerrant without being literal.  We know that those stories are not intended as a factual account of what happened, but are intended to tell a moral story.  However, as I pointed out above, Genesis goes directly from the creation, to the Fall, and then to the lineage of Noah from Adam.  Much of the authority of the Bible comes from the fact that Moses is considered a direct descendant from Adam (as the first man).  At what point are we supposed to consider Genesis as transitioning from figurative to literal?  If we transition just after the 6-day creation, then we still have to contend with the Garden of Eden story, talking snake and all.  If wait until after the Fall, then our only proof of Adam as having directly contacted the divine is a metaphor, and so what proof do we have that he is truly the first man, and therefore what proof do we have that Moses has any spiritual authority?  Without that authority, all we have is a guy who claims to descend from the first man, who made up some laws, and claimed to talk to God.  It becomes Aesop's Fables meets U.S. Civil and Criminal Code.  Moses becomes the L. Ron Hubbard of ancient Israel, and his book no longer has value as the "true Word of God".  To believe that the Bible is inerrant, it is necessary to presume a largely literal interpretation because of this very reason.  Beyond that, there are people who believe that the whole book is absolutely true to the word, except where specified (the parables, etc.).  Perhaps it's not appropriate to change the titling of the article, but simply specify that some of the problems raised involve parts of the Bible that some--but ny no means all--people who believe in Biblical inerrancy consider to be metaphorical or figurative, but since there are people who take a completely literal view of the Bible, that the article addresses the problem from that perspective.  That ensures that it is understood that, while not all the problems may apply to every believer in Biblical inerrancy, (virtually) every believer will have at least one problem that applies to their interpretation of the Bible specifically (and I only say "virtually" because the possibility exists that there is someone who believes it to be inerrant while being completely figurative and metaphorical, though I would imagine that probability is virtually zero).  Reverend Lucifer (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized that you weren't commenting on my post, Godot... Reverend Lucifer (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

www.gotquestions.org
Has anyone ever been to the website, www.gotquestions.org? They have an answer for EVERYTHING. Has anyone ever succeeded in challenging them, or any REAL Biblical scholars or Apologetics websites?

Does this all make sense?
So I was just reading parts of this section and I find:


 * Firstly, if one looks at this from any sort of rational perspective, one can see that of course the layman needs the help of experts to understand the Bible; if one just picked up a copy of the Bible he found in the wilderness and read it cover-to-cover (something that few will do, and some cannot do) current doctrinal positions are the product of two millennia worth of theological thought, which the isolated Bible reader could not replicate in his own head, even allowing that most of that theology is based solely in the Bible. It is not: one must have at least some background in Western philosophy and the history of the times to do that properly.

and


 * There is a third (albeit slightly weaker) point to be made: to suggest that the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand the bible seems to imply that the bible is not literally true after all. Instead, this would mean that the composite of what is in the bible and what the Holy Spirit makes you understand is literally true as a combined unit. But of course, since the Holy Spirit speaks to individuals (as opposed to a world wide broadcast), we are still left what amounts to individual interpretation of the bible, or at the very least a homunculus fallacy.

I can't say that I really understand the points being made. Though I concede that perhaps sophisticated theology is involved.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Apocrypha
Where do all the 'many, many' books consigned to 'Apocrypha' fit into biblical inerrancy?

There is also the question of #which# version of the biblical books is taken as 'the source of all wisdom' - as they can differ quite significantly.

And how does fit into the case? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

2 Timothy?
The thing I've most often seen cited as an internal claim of inerrancy is Rev 22:18-19:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Thomas Carder of CAPAlert is particularly fond of claiming that's a prohibition against any interpretation but his rather that a standard copier's curse. King Skeleton (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And Paul makes it clear more than once, that some of what is in 1 Corinthians 7 is not from God.   TomS TDotO (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)