Sven

Inspired by the still ongoing discussion in PEANUT GALLERY: Vinnie vs. RobertLW on Biblical inerrancy, I repeatedly asked myself the above question:

Why do you (people) assume inerrancy of the bible (Qu'ran, etc.)?

I'm interested in if you assumed this from the start (which is what RobertLW and BGic apparently did) or if you came to this conclusion while/after reading the bible, and in both cases: Why?

The only point I've seen so far from RobertLW is that "he presumes the verity of the biblical writers" (paraphrased). But he didn't he explained (1) Why he does presume this (2) Why this should be "enough" for the bible to be inerrant.
Perhaps BGic already answered my question, but then I missed it.

GermanHeretic

Isn't that obvious?

1) If the bible/koran was not infallible, then perhaps some essentials "truths" in it are not really truths. Like Jesus' resurrection for example. If that story is only a metaphor, the whole christian belief can be thrown away.

2) If the bible/koran contained errors, it'd probably be a book like any other.

3) Divinely inspired writers would be poorly inspired or God would have told rubbish, when that results in errors.

4) Bible/koran is the only (original) source for their belief. It if contains errors, their belief may contain errors :eek. Well, catholics don't rely on the bible solely, but anyway their other sources (popes e.g.) are supposedly infallibe too.

Sven

Thanks for your answer. In essence it boild down to "because they want to/have to".
But stating things like this only poisons the well - I'm interested in hearing the reasons from inerrantists directly, perhaps there's more about it.

Spike~

Because there are so many things in the Bible that defy logic and science, and if even one of them were wrong, then who knows what else could be wrong. Like German said, their faith depends on the infalablity of the Bible.

dado

well, i'm a theist, and i don't have a clue what people mean when they say "inerrant". mostly it seems to be some kind of handwaving meaning roughly "well, that's what i think it says, and it wouldn't lie to me even if it does lie to you".

blt to go

Sven – believe it or not, I can answer this question.

My bona fides: until recently I was an inerrantist. 99.2% (actual calculation) of my life I have been an inerrantist. I have attended (chronologically) Baptist, community (Calvinist), Church of Christ, Presbyterian (sorry, RobertLW), Wesleyan and now Baptist. I have argued inerrancy with pastors, elders, deacons, students, professors, etc. so I am somewhat qualified.

Your question of “Why?� I see as a two-part question, How did you come by it, and why do you hold to it? (I think) At least that is how I will answer it.

How come by it? It has been my sole experience that a person who believes in inerrancy was born into it. (In my case, literally, coming from a long line of Bible-inerrancy believing Christians.) Either, like me, it is in your family, or you “become saved� and enter a church that believes in it. Frankly, I have never personally met a Christian who does NOT believe in inerrancy. It is immediately assumed. Kind of like being born in America and belief in inalienable rights. Just natural.

Why hold onto it? First, because it is never questioned. Look, the book starts with the beginning of the world, ends with the end of the world, and has a nice flow throughout. Nice stories of the right guy getting the prize, if you will, and the bad guy getting his “just desserts� in the end. Most of it seems to make some sense so why not?

Maybe once every ten years or so, the Christians will set up a “debate� between one Christian who will argue for inerrancy and one who will argue against. Since everybody (including the audience) is Christian, it is one big love-fest. Typically the “against� position brings up contradictions as seen in the other thread, and the “for� brings up apologetics such as we have seen—Judas’ body fell from the tree, the Amalekite was lying, God allowed Satan to tempt David, etc.

Since all of the Christians KNOW the bible is inerrant, they readily agree with the “for� position and after the debate go out for cake and ice cream. This debate does two things, re-justifies the position of inerrancy (after all they had a legitimate debate) and allows the Christian to be even more certain of their position.

Every church I went to, almost as a mantra, cited Inerrancy, Inspiration, Word of God. The other reason that inerrancy is held onto so strongly is that it is felt it is one of the legs of a three-legged stool. If it falls, the whole thing must fall, and therefore it must be defended at all costs.

Further, if a Christian concedes an error (as cited before), then the whole house may fall, as we cannot determine what is error and what is truth.

Finally, as an aside, you will most likely fail in arguing inerrancy with a Christian. The best example of this is that I have recently been using Deuteronomy 20 as an explanation of my change of belief. It goes like this (in a discussion with a Christian)

“Do you know, I recently was reading the Koran, and it states that Allah will allow infidels far from Israel to live, if they convert to Islam, but to utterly destroy the nation of Israel, regardless?�
“Despicable, those dirty Muslims, too bad they aren’t saved. Don’t they see that is wrong?� (or words to that effect)
“Actually, I was not describing Allah, but Yahweh in Deut. 20.�
It is at this point I see their eyes glaze over and they say, “Well, God’s ways are not our ways, we cannot question God.�

Apparently we are very free to question Allah, but not God.

I know this really doesn’t have anything to do with inerrancy, but you will have the same problem.

It is a tenet that CANNOT be questioned, and WILL NOT be conceded at all costs.

RobertLW

Sven,

I will do my best to answer your question, it is a fair question, although my answer is not simple and is based in Philosophy. BTG answered that his experience is that people are born into it. This may be true for many people, it is not true for all people. He also says that inerrancy is never questioned by Christians, this is wholly false. Search the internet, you will find many, many different perspectives and definitions of inerrancy done by Christians, many critical of the historical view of inerrancy.

Since you ask the question as a personal question, I will answer it from a personal perspective. Unlike BTG, I was not born into a fully Christian family. My parents were divorced when I was young and I lived with my father, who is decidedly not Christian. More of an agnostic athiest so to speak. (Although the older he gets, the more he talks of God) My Mother, who is Baptist, (although does not attend church much for her own reasons) was absent most of my life until my late teens. In my early teens, I adopted atheism (and had some interesting, heated conversations with my Mother a little later in life) and held that belief until my mid-20's in which I started believing a little more agnostic until I was 30/31 when I became Christian. (It took awhile) I did not come to the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant right away, I held more of a mostly inerrant point of view until about a year ago. (I am 34) Incidently, I have argued vigorously that the Bible is not inerrant for most of my life. Thus, a very brief glimpse into my background.

In order to answer your question, I must first define what I mean by the term "inerrancy". In other words, what question are we trying to answer? Is the question, does the Bible we have today contain any errors of any kind? Clearly it does, the answer to that question is yes. The more relevant question that is being answered by the modern day term "inerrancy" is; Is the Bible true? I maintain that the Bible is totally inerrant in its truth and message. I did answer why I believe what I believe in this thread, PEANUT GALLERY: Vinnie vs. RobertLW on Biblical inerrancy in an answer to a post done by BTG but I will give you the short version.

1. Why do I presume this?

I believe the Christian worldview to be the only worldview to justify all we have and use in this world. Including, reason, morality, love etc.... (all the non-material things) as well as empirical data. I do not believe that any other worldview can justify the non-material things that we all agree exist. For me, I came to this conclusion after evaluating all the relevant data at my disposal and concluding that God does exist and he has given us his word. The question then became, which word is true? I have obviously concluded that the Bible is the only true word of God, and as such, I must presume the verity of the Biblical authors. Either you presume the verity of the authors, or you do not. For me, the important question is who can better justify their presumption?

2. Why this should be "enough" for the bible to be inerrant?

It is "enough" for me, personally, because I believe any other option than inerrancy would contradict my worldview. Since I believe my worldview to be fully justified, the Bible can be nothing other than inerrant and I am justified in that belief.

3. If you came to this conclusion while/after reading the bible, and in both cases: Why?

It is important to note that I read the Bible, cover to cover, twice (once as an atheist) prior to concluding that it is indeed inerrant. I believed the Bible to be inerrant only after I radically changed my worldview to one that is justified and read it a third time, cover to cover. Why? Because I read it with a whole different set of "glasses" on. I could see what I could not see before.

Hope I answered your questions......

Robert

Vinnie

Are you willing to justify//explain what the Christian worldview is? I thought it was based upon the Bible? How is this not going to end up being circular?

So what is the xian worldview and how do you arrive at it?

Vinnie

blt to go

RobertLW, I thought when I stated that christians do not question inerrancy, it was obvious that I was talking from personal, not global, experience. Apparently not.

Having been an inerrantist and converted to errantist, it is interesting talking to an errantist converted to an inerrantist.

1) What errors does the bible today have?
2) What were your arguments for errancy?
3) Was the sole source of your change, the change in your worldview?

Vinnie

Let me also note that of all the sytemtatic theologians out there reconrstructing "the Christian worldview", I don't know one of them who does not use the Bible to arrive at their view. So I reiterate my question with that little extra detail added.

What is your posion? Rez can be shown to be historical and this confirms Jesus' self-statements in GJonh? The gospels are historically relialbe? How do you get to your worldview?