Importance of Innerrancy to Moderate Christians

Which Bible? There are several Canons (lists of what is or is not in the Bible) and no one Universal Canon. Until you can identify what the Bible is, it is impossible to even ask if it is inerrant.Second, what is inerrant? Does that mean it is accuract as a guide to Faith? Or does that mean that it must be factually correct in terms of history and events? If it contains a parable, a fable told by Jesus to explain some point, do those events in the parable need to be factually correct? If not, then is there any reason that other tales such as the Flood could also be meant simply as a means of illustrating some underlying moral or lesson?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The issue of Canon is important. If there is no one set of books that can be identified as the "Bible", then how can there be innerancy? Again, that has to go back to your definition of innerancy. If a story is true in the sense that it teaches a moral or lesson in life, does it have to be factually true? I believe that the ressurection (and it is not as much the core as the Ascension) happened but even if it were not true, the basic message of Christianity would still be valid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And I agree. But the topic is on the importance of Innerancy. My point is that before that can be answered you need to define what is meant by first "the Bible" and secondly by innerancy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you may still be mistaking what I'm saying. The KJV is but one translation of the books contained in the common Roman Catholic Canon and Apocrypha or Western Canon. But that is but one of the Canon.The Western Canon is a list of what Books should be included in the Bible, but it is not the only such list. Other Christian Churches have different Canon. They include or exclude books that are in the Western Canon. The question then becomes, "If Christianity cannot even agree on which books should or should not be in the Bible, how can we say that any one Bible, regardless of translation, is innerant?" That depends on what you mean by accurate. If you mean that every word must be lierally true, then any honest reading of the Bible will bring up numerous mutually-exclusive accounts. Just look at the hoops folk go through here to try to resolve the conflicts between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.For me the bigger question is "Why did the redactors that assembled the stories include two mutually exclusive accounts?"I happen to believe that the folk that wrote and edited the stories were not idiots, they too saw all the conflicts, but chose to include the stories and not even to merge them as was done in the flood stories. Why?One possiblity is that the two stories teach us lessons about how people of a given period saw GOD, different aspects of the external entity, the Territory that is GOD. In Genesis 1 we see a transcendant separate GOD, sure, overarching, aloof. In Genesis 2 we see a personal GOD, a friend and companion. Two different lessons.The tales do not have to accurate as history, or science, any more than Hamelin really had to have all of the children drowned to teach a lesson.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is inerrant. Salvation is a whole different issue. But if you want to know my position of Salvation, one place to start is Message 1You asked about the importance of inerrancy. I simply asked if it is impossible for Christians to even decide what books are in or out of the Bible, how can the issue of whether the Bible is inerrant even be discussed? Which Canon constitutes the Bible is certainly important.Assume for a second that in court you were presented with several different copies of what was supposed to be the same contract. Suppose each of those contracts contained different material, and each was certified as being accurate, and each was purported to be the "TRUE and ACCURATE" version? Imagine in addition that one of those contracts had only five sections while another included those five as well as 40 more? First, do not think that I "consider it a moral guideline, one extended parable, and little else". It is quite a bit more than that. It is also a glimpse at a people as they grow, evolve and mature. It shows their thinking about life, GOD, society, their history and mythology, their traditions and customs, their hopes, asperations, fears, conflicts, failures and successes.Nor do I see the Bible as flawed. To assume I believe that is to misunderstand my position. But just as with anything else, we can try to use the Bible for other than what its intended purpose was, and that act may result in failure.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry about that. No, not when the premise does not apply to the case under study.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Seems there is a question and an assertion lurking in there.As to the former, why a modern scholar might be better equipped than an earlier one, consider the medium you used to post your message. The simple fact is the modern scholar has tools that were not available to earlier scholars. There is also the evolution of knowledge. Each scholar builds on a base of research from those who came before.The later assertion is one without foundation. What makes you think that the scholars that believe that there were various authors of the John material have a bias against GOD? In fact, what makes you think that the idea that the various books attributed to a John were not written by the same person is even modern? Revelations has always been a contentious book, and there were arguments about whether it should be included from the very beginning. When I was in high school we discussed the multiple John theories as well as things like the later additions to Mark.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But we have never found any originals, and so we really don't know what they contained. How is Jesus references to Genesis any different to His references to a vineyard or construction methods? Then why did the Holy Spirit give different directions to different Christians? How come the Holy Spirit told some groups that Enoch should be in and others that Enoch should be out, told some that Jubilees was in and others that Jubilees was out, that 3 Macabees should be in some Canon but not others, that 3 & 4 Ezra should be in some Canon but not others?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yet all of the Canon, which all came into existence at around the same time, are different.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I believe that you said the Canon were created under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Now you seem to be saying that the Canon was not that, but rather the Canon came about by committee.Acually if you consider all the Canon, the only place where there is absolute agreement between all of them seems to be the First Five books of the Bible.The facts are that we do not have any originals and so we cannot be sure what the original books contained. We have copies, and copies from different sources and so can make an educated guess what the originals were like. The same concerns relate to Canon. Different groups made different decisions when deciding what was or was not to be included.There is no Universal Bible. There is no Universal Canon.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do we know exactly what was in the originals? Beyond the first five books of the Bible are there ANY other books common to all Canon? Yet I am a believer and do not see that internal consistency. For example, much of the concept of the Fall of Satan comes from Enoch, yet Enoch is not part of YOUR Canon.So to some questions, simple ones I hope.Are there any originals of ANY book of the Bible?As asked above, are there ANY books other than the first five books of the Bible that are common to ALL Canon?Is there any reason to think that Jesus references to Genesis were any different than His references to other known experiences and common culture?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So we have NO originals of ANY book of the Bible.You are limiting your claims to only ONE of the Canons and simply declaring the ONE You Select is the innerant Canon? to which Faith replies:

quote:

---

They certainly authenticate the book of Genesis. Otherwise I have no idea what you are referring to.

---

How? How is Jesus references to the stories found in Genesis any different than His reference to any other custom or experience familar to His audience?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Or Samaritan or Ethiopian.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am a believer. I believe that GOD has not damned anyone and that Jesus has told us what we need to do. I believe that the Holy Spirit lives within me and helps guide me.Perhaps you can explain it to me.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, perhaps by you explaining why I don't meet the criteria, folk may get an understanding of just what the criteria is.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion