Do you need to believe that the Bible is inerrant (Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".) to be considered a Christian?

One of the core, undisputable tenants across several of the churches I've attended believe this. Curious if that is the case for most Christians on here, too.

I think I have three categories of unbelief and I will provide an example of each.

(1) the Bible is not inerrant because of factual inaccuracies that do not tie to multiple historical sources. Major things like did the exodus really happen? Or did the dead really rise from the grave and talk to people (like the book of Matthew says). Minor things like did the census really require people to go to their own home town (beginning of the Jesus narrative). Regardless of whether the detail is minor or major, inerrancy would imply that no detail can be wrong.

(2) the Bible is not inerrant because text has been added. An example would be the end of John 7 and into John 8. Many of the original Greek manuscripts do not have this; modern translations like the niv and esv bracket this passage as not original.

(3) the Bible is not inerrant because man is flawed. Although God is perfect, when God tries to work through man, man's actions can still be sinful and flawed (see David). The entire old testament is actually about how there is no perfect man; these same imperfect men are then somehow perfect when writing down the Bible?

TIA for any thoughts.

The issue is where do you draw the line?

If it's errant then someone could claim that certain teachings weren't really from God but simply a product of that time. (Which many liberal-leaning churches now try to do)

But I do agree that our method for compiling the scripture certainly wasn't perfect.

They're either holy scriptures or they're not. I don't see why God would give us errant scripture. That's not useful at all. I can't think of any old or new testament saint who questioned what they were using was holy.

There are multiple copies of different books from the Second Temple period and the English translation history is a mess. What makes you certain the version you have today is the correct version?

The answer to that is that Christ left us a visible Church, and he promised that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church into all truth.

The Bible comes to us through the Holy Church and her Sacred Traditions that have testified to, and been a witness of, what is scripture.

The scriptures are inerrant. In cases where there may be apparent contradictions it is the interpretation that needs to be questioned.

ETA: or to your point the error is in the translation. Ultimately, it is through the Church that we can understand the faith. God did not drop a book out of the sky for us.

God didn't "give us a book". The Holy Spirit guided the writers and the councils which determined which writings are "scriptural" and which are not. We still rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the Magisterium of the Church in the modern interpretation and relevance of His Holy Word as identified in the Canon of the Bible. This is why, I believe it is more important/critical to use a church-based Bible, than to attend a "Bible-based Church".

To answer the original question, Yes, the Bible is "True", in that it is and reveals the truths of God's relationship with humanity. It is not, however, a science or history textbook. It must be interpreted for modern use with an understanding of the many different types of writings, authors, intendend audiences, purposes, and the knowledge, and social and political norms and climates at the times of the writings.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

God didn't "give us a book". The Holy Spirit guided the writers and the councils which determined which writings are "scriptural" and which are not. We still rely on the Holy Spirit to guide the Magisterium of the Church in the modern interpretation and relevance of His Holy Word as identified in the Canon of the Bible. This is why, I believe it is more important/critical to use a church-based Bible, than to attend a "Bible-based Church".

To answer the original question, Yes, the Bible is "True", in that it is and reveals the truths of God's relationship with humanity. It is not, however, a science or history textbook. It must be interpreted for modern use with an understanding of the many different types of writings, authors, intendend audiences, purposes, and the knowledge, and social and political norms and climates at the times of the writings.

---

I am not a Catholic but agree with your post. You can make the Bible say just about anything you want it to, especially if you pull verses out of context.

And of course the Bible was not meant to be a history or science book.

The great thing about the OP's line of thinking is that it will force the issue on sola scriptura vs tradition/church founded on Peter. It was destined to happen at some point, and, in my opinion, it's coming fairly soon. Most of the very best sola scriptura defenders I listen to today have adopted some level of necessary tradition in order to interpret the Bible the "right way".

While I'm not hopeful for a true reunification any time soon, I do think the idea of "just read the Bible" is going to fade away.

How do you reconcile the inerrancy of the Bible with "it wasn't meant to be a history book" when there is so much history described in the Bible? Like the census. Like when some of the new testament writers mention specific names (the thought being "go ask this person"; the author writing to their contemporaries and asking readers to go ask a person who was alive to further recount the event). Like the entire book of Ezra or Numbers (literal history lessons).

Inerrancy means there can be no errors, regardless of whether you believe the book was meant to be a history or not. When it says things that aren't historically true, the text is no longer inerrent.

Biblical infallibility is more of what some of you are describing? Biblical infallibility is "the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true; the belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose."


Lastly, the question in the OP that I was actually asking was do you have to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible to be a Christian? The churches I've been to with a core tenant of "the Bible is inerrant" likely wouldn't let me become a member of the church if I told them I didn't believe in that tenant (I've never tried because I'd like to be respectful to their beliefs and I'm not going to lie). That said, if there is only "one church" under Christ, does that mean they believe I'm not a Christian?

Marsh said:

---

The churches I've been to with a core tenant of "the Bible is inerrant" likely wouldn't let me become a member of the church if I told them I didn't believe in that tenant (I've never tried because I'd like to be respectful to their beliefs and I'm not going to lie).

---

What is an example of one of these tenants you don't believe?

Faithful Ag said:

---

Marsh said:

---

The churches I've been to with a core tenant of "the Bible is inerrant" likely wouldn't let me become a member of the church if I told them I didn't believe in that tenant (I've never tried because I'd like to be respectful to their beliefs and I'm not going to lie).

---

What is an example of one of these tenants you don't believe?

---

The verbiage? Something like "the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and therefore inerrant."

I look at that word (inerrant) and the Christian definition and I just don't think it needs to be true to be a Christian. I understand the argument that it opens up so much in the Bible to" interpretation", in that if it isn't all true, we can pick and choose what we want to believe.

Marsh said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Marsh said:

---

The churches I've been to with a core tenant of "the Bible is inerrant" likely wouldn't let me become a member of the church if I told them I didn't believe in that tenant (I've never tried because I'd like to be respectful to their beliefs and I'm not going to lie).

---

What is an example of one of these tenants you don't believe?

---

The verbiage? Something like "the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and therefore inerrant."

I look at that word (inerrant) and the Christian definition and I just don't think it needs to be true to be a Christian. I understand the argument that it opens up so much in the Bible to" interpretation", in that if it isn't all true, we can pick and choose what we want to believe.

---

Well, the first problem with that tenant is the claim that they got the 66 books part right because they are already in error with that.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Marsh said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Marsh said:

---

The churches I've been to with a core tenant of "the Bible is inerrant" likely wouldn't let me become a member of the church if I told them I didn't believe in that tenant (I've never tried because I'd like to be respectful to their beliefs and I'm not going to lie).

---

What is an example of one of these tenants you don't believe?

---

The verbiage? Something like "the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and therefore inerrant."

I look at that word (inerrant) and the Christian definition and I just don't think it needs to be true to be a Christian. I understand the argument that it opens up so much in the Bible to" interpretation", in that if it isn't all true, we can pick and choose what we want to believe.

---

Well, the first problem with that tenant is the claim that they got the 66 books part right because they are already in error with that.

---

Yep, I remember that Jesus quote. Two Timothy, I think?


I kid.

But do you seriously have that much conviction that there is some certainty in the amount of books that should be in the Bible? I guess if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then you do believe that?

If I don't believe there can be any certainty that mankind can come to on this subject, does that mean I'm not a Christian in your eyes? Don't get me wrong - there is a true and correct answer; but I don't think we can be certain of that answer here on earth.

Marsh said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Marsh said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

Marsh said:

---

The churches I've been to with a core tenant of "the Bible is inerrant" likely wouldn't let me become a member of the church if I told them I didn't believe in that tenant (I've never tried because I'd like to be respectful to their beliefs and I'm not going to lie).

---

What is an example of one of these tenants you don't believe?

---

The verbiage? Something like "the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and therefore inerrant."

I look at that word (inerrant) and the Christian definition and I just don't think it needs to be true to be a Christian. I understand the argument that it opens up so much in the Bible to" interpretation", in that if it isn't all true, we can pick and choose what we want to believe.

---

Well, the first problem with that tenant is the claim that they got the 66 books part right because they are already in error with that.

---

Yep, I remember that Jesus quote. Two Timothy, I think?


I kid.

But do you seriously have that much conviction that there is some certainty in the amount of books that should be in the Bible? I guess if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then you do believe that?

If I don't believe there can be any certainty that mankind can come to on this subject, does that mean I'm not a Christian in your eyes? Don't get me wrong - there is a true and correct answer; but I don't think we can be certain of that answer here on earth.

---

Other people's eyes do not matter. Only Jesus's eyes do. If you know the Lord and have a real relationship with Him, you are a Christian. It does not matter what a human says.

And of course, what is meant by inerrancy differs from theologian to theologian also.

From this linked article, the early church fathers had different views on whether the "days" as mentioned in the Genesis creation story were actual 24 hour time periods.

So the words are inerrant, but the interpretation is different.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis

Quote:

---

But do you seriously have that much conviction that there is some certainty in the amount of books that should be in the Bible? I guess if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then you do believe that?

---

Jesus left us a church not a book. I have certainty that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus established this visible & apostolic church. It is through this church that we receive the deposit of faith as it has been protected and passed down to us through the generations. The Church is the foundation and without the church we could not have the New Testament Scriptures. I could know everything I need about Christ from the church he established, even if that church had not written anything down.

Do I believe the Bible is without error? Yes.

Was everything in the Bible intended to be 100% historically accurate? Maybe and maybe not.

Does the Bible require an infallible interpretation in order to remain infallible? Yes.

Quote:

---

If I don't believe there can be any certainty that mankind can come to on this subject, does that mean I'm not a Christian in your eyes? Don't get me wrong - there is a true and correct answer; but I don't think we can be certain of that answer here on earth.

---

The definition of a Christian is not so much about what you believe Biblically, but more about what you believe about Jesus Christ.

The vast majority of Christians over the past 2,000 years could not read what was written anyway.

Sapper Redux said:

---

There are multiple copies of different books from the Second Temple period and the English translation history is a mess. What makes you certain the version you have today is the correct version?

---

So you believe in the God of confusion? oh wait, you're an atheist.

The biggest problem with biblical interpretation is everyone interpreting the bible on their own, with no sense of sacred tradition, and how the early church interpreted scripture...

the word is "tenet", not "tenant"

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

They're either holy scriptures or they're not. I don't see why God would give us errant scripture. That's not useful at all. I can't think of any old or new testament saint who questioned what they were using was holy.

---

I actually agree with the general point in determining if something is divine or not. I just disagree on whether it's errant.

If you don't have an infallible means of determining the canon of the Bible, then how can you know that what you call the Bible is actually what you think it is?

The Bible didn't drop out of the sky with a divinely ordained table of contents or a "infallible interpretation guide" and it isn't otherwise infallibly self-explanatory. So, not only do you need an infallible means of determining the canon of the Bible, you also need an infallible means for interpreting the Bible once it's content is infallibly determined.

If only Jesus had thought of this problem when he was on earth admonishing his apostles to write everything that he taught them in books so his church could be based on that ...

Good points. My question is, what's worse:

A) A bunch of unqualified people interpreting the Bible badly but with good intentions?

B) A bunch of qualified people interpreting the Bible well but with selfish intentions?

Also, how does one tell when someone is qualifed or whether they have good intentions? I don't know the answer, but that's generally where I fall in this whole personal interpretation debate. Of course everyone likes qualified people that interpret the Bible with the best of intentions, and everyone loathes unqualified people interpreting the Bible with selfish intentions. But good luck with that. The power to interpret Scripture is just like any other power and open to abuse, so I hate to gatekeep it. But there are certainly a lot of people making bad interpretations out there. So to me, it's a pick your poison situation.

Third way: forget individualistic approach and do interpretation communally.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Good points. My question is, what's worse:

A) A bunch of unqualified people interpreting the Bible badly but with good intentions?

B) A bunch of qualified people interpreting the Bible well but with selfish intentions?

Also, how does one tell when someone is qualifed or whether they have good intentions? I don't know the answer, but that's generally where I fall in this whole personal interpretation debate. Of course everyone likes qualified people that interpret the Bible with the best of intentions, and everyone loathes unqualified people interpreting the Bible with selfish intentions. But good luck with that. The power to interpret Scripture is just like any other power and open to abuse, so I hate to gatekeep it. But there are certainly a lot of people making bad interpretations out there. So to me, it's a pick your poison situation.

---

That's why tradition is so important. The first question that should be asked in any interpretation is "what did the first believers think?" Then "is the a historical record of this beliefs sticking around?"

That way we can defer to the men who learned it from the men closest to Jesus rather than trying to figure this all out 2000 years later.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

They're either holy scriptures or they're not. I don't see why God would give us errant scripture. That's not useful at all. I can't think of any old or new testament saint who questioned what they were using was holy.

---

I actually agree with the general point in determining if something is divine or not. I just disagree on whether it's errant.

---

Don't believe in something that's errant. If you think it's errant, then it's not holy scripture.

Marsh said:

---

Do you need to believe that the Bible is inerrant (Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".) to be considered a Christian?

One of the core, undisputable tenants across several of the churches I've attended believe this. Curious if that is the case for most Christians on here, too.

I think I have three categories of unbelief and I will provide an example of each.

(1) the Bible is not inerrant because of factual inaccuracies that do not tie to multiple historical sources. Major things like did the exodus really happen? Or did the dead really rise from the grave and talk to people (like the book of Matthew says). Minor things like did the census really require people to go to their own home town (beginning of the Jesus narrative). Regardless of whether the detail is minor or major, inerrancy would imply that no detail can be wrong.

(2) the Bible is not inerrant because text has been added. An example would be the end of John 7 and into John 8. Many of the original Greek manuscripts do not have this; modern translations like the niv and esv bracket this passage as not original.

(3) the Bible is not inerrant because man is flawed. Although God is perfect, when God tries to work through man, man's actions can still be sinful and flawed (see David). The entire old testament is actually about how there is no perfect man; these same imperfect men are then somehow perfect when writing down the Bible?

TIA for any thoughts.

---

I absolutely believe the bible is the inerrant word of God. The bible is actually one of the most historically accurate texts that we have. Much of what might be considered inaccurate is attributed to the writing styles and what was important to note as allegory or some other literary exercise. Some books tell the same story but list different locations. Much of the bible is telling us about God, salvation, and is a teaching tool. It is important to read scripture in the way its intended. The importance of Genesis isn't that it was making scientific assertions in the way we would view them.
As far as the Bible, well if you look to modern translations ( NIV, ESV) you are likely getting a modernist approach. So when you say "the Bible", you can't really brush all of them with a broad stroke.
God makes use of imperfect men. If you believe the Holy Spirit guided the authors and the Church fathers in compiling the books, then man's flaws are moot. Nowhere does the bible say that the authors, prophets etc had to be perfect. The only sinless ones where Christ (who was without sin) and his mother (who was saved from sin)

It's demonstrably errant. Whether or not the degree is important to you is up for debate, i suppose.

Marsh said:

---

Do you need to believe that the Bible is inerrant (Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".) to be considered a Christian?

One of the core, undisputable tenants across several of the churches I've attended believe this. Curious if that is the case for most Christians on here, too.

I think I have three categories of unbelief and I will provide an example of each.

(1) the Bible is not inerrant because of factual inaccuracies that do not tie to multiple historical sources. Major things like did the exodus really happen? Or did the dead really rise from the grave and talk to people (like the book of Matthew says). Minor things like did the census really require people to go to their own home town (beginning of the Jesus narrative). Regardless of whether the detail is minor or major, inerrancy would imply that no detail can be wrong.

(2) the Bible is not inerrant because text has been added. An example would be the end of John 7 and into John 8. Many of the original Greek manuscripts do not have this; modern translations like the niv and esv bracket this passage as not original.

(3) the Bible is not inerrant because man is flawed. Although God is perfect, when God tries to work through man, man's actions can still be sinful and flawed (see David). The entire old testament is actually about how there is no perfect man; these same imperfect men are then somehow perfect when writing down the Bible?

TIA for any thoughts.

---

Why does the bible have to be inerrant?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Good points. My question is, what's worse:

A) A bunch of unqualified people interpreting the Bible badly but with good intentions?

B) A bunch of qualified people interpreting the Bible well but with selfish intentions?

Also, how does one tell when someone is qualifed or whether they have good intentions? I don't know the answer, but that's generally where I fall in this whole personal interpretation debate. Of course everyone likes qualified people that interpret the Bible with the best of intentions, and everyone loathes unqualified people interpreting the Bible with selfish intentions. But good luck with that. The power to interpret Scripture is just like any other power and open to abuse, so I hate to gatekeep it. But there are certainly a lot of people making bad interpretations out there. So to me, it's a pick your poison situation.

---

I don't think you could pose it in such a binary way. With (A) you could have people still interpreting with selfish intentions and (B) with good intentions. What is more likely, that Christ left us to just figure it out individually, or did he establish a teaching authority to help us with interpreting the hard parts. Obviously the Apostles taught scripture but when they were teaching I believe they didn't just state only what is in the bible today but I'm sure they explained what the scriptures meant. Jesus breathed on them (God breathed) and they taught. Its their interpretations that Catholics/Orthodox see as the tradition handed down.

schmendeler said:

---

It's demonstrably errant. Whether or not the degree is important to you is up for debate, i suppose.

---

Inerrancy of the Bible is a concept I always struggled with, as a Christian. It got too difficult to believe certain parts and to reconcile them with the reality I observed in the world. Even if I were to continue to be a believer, I would have to admit that the Bible is an errant document written by imperfect men who held some incorrect views about the world.

I would suggest you might be a casualty of modern views of inerrancy. Traditions for both Judaism and early Christians have a long history of identifying the difficult passages and working through them.

Marsh said:

---

Do you need to believe that the Bible is inerrant (Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".) to be considered a Christian?

One of the core, undisputable tenants across several of the churches I've attended believe this. Curious if that is the case for most Christians on here, too.

I think I have three categories of unbelief and I will provide an example of each.

(1) the Bible is not inerrant because of factual inaccuracies that do not tie to multiple historical sources. Major things like did the exodus really happen? Or did the dead really rise from the grave and talk to people (like the book of Matthew says). Minor things like did the census really require people to go to their own home town (beginning of the Jesus narrative). Regardless of whether the detail is minor or major, inerrancy would imply that no detail can be wrong.

(2) the Bible is not inerrant because text has been added. An example would be the end of John 7 and into John 8. Many of the original Greek manuscripts do not have this; modern translations like the niv and esv bracket this passage as not original.

(3) the Bible is not inerrant because man is flawed. Although God is perfect, when God tries to work through man, man's actions can still be sinful and flawed (see David). The entire old testament is actually about how there is no perfect man; these same imperfect men are then somehow perfect when writing down the Bible?

TIA for any thoughts.

---

To be considered a Christian one needs to believe that Jesus died and rose again for their sins. Their trust is in Him alone and no other. This moment in time is the one in which God gives a person 'eternal life' and seals them until the day of redemption. (Eph.1:13-14, 1 Cor. 15:1-4)

A person can believe this message and become a Christian without having a bible in their language in the same way people believed the message prior to the NT being written.

In most statements of inerrancy you will see it as, "the Bible is God's written word and without error in the original manuscripts."

1. Supposed Factual inaccuracies: Did the exodus really happen? Did the dead really rise and speak to people? | Do you notice what is being assumed by this statement in calling these events factual inaccuracies? This would be assuming that the Diary of Anne Frank contains factual inaccuracies because her mother and father did not also keep a diary.

How many historical documents of events exist from one persons point of view that are considered accurate when no other copies exist? Think of journals from soldiers in the civil war.

2. This is the study of textual criticism. This is a scholarly study. Example: The alternate ending in Mark 16 after verse 9. This is not in the early manuscripts but is in the later copies. Some schools of thought say that the majority of manuscripts are the most accurate and others say the oldest manuscripts are most accurate.
(I lean towards the oldest manuscripts)

Modern example:

Bke the kake wth 2 kps of brwn soogr.

I have just given you a sentence in which every word is misspelled and with a 100 percent error rate and I'm convinced you would know how much brown sugar to use. The copies and the translations are infinitely more accurate than the sentence I used as an example. The more copies we have, the easier it is to piece together the original.

None of the variations change any doctrine or come close to doing so.

(3) the Bible is not inerrant because man is flawed. Although God is perfect, when God tries to work through man, man's actions can still be sinful and flawed (see David).

Have you ever made a 100 on a test? How is this possible if you are flawed? Sometimes people get it right. I think this is the case with the originals. Can I prove this? No. Is it a hill to die on? No.

Should we toss out the entire bible if a scribe spelled "honor" like this, "Honour your father?"

Quote:

---

There are multiple copies of different books from the Second Temple period and the English translation history is a mess. What makes you certain the version you have today is the correct version?

---

Studying the number of differences and the significance of those differences.

A grene kow made blu mlk
Ah green cow mad white milk

The difference between these 2 sentences is 100 percent in every word. You can reasonable conclude 5 of the 6 words. The only question is, was the milk blue or white? Next, is there any significance to the color of the cheese?

Not knowing the color of the cheese doesn't lead you to believe that a pig made the milk or a farmer made the milk

What are the differences of the copies we have and the significance of those differences?

Looks up talks by Daniel B. Wallace on YouTube. He's making a digital library of the ancients texts

11. Essential doctrines are in jeopardy in modern translations. Actually, no doctrine essential for salvation is affected by translations, modern or ancientunless done by a particular cult for its own purposes. For example, those Englishmen who signed the Westminster Confession of Faith in the seventeenth century were using the KJV, yet it is still a normative doctrinal statement that millions of Protestants sign today even though they use modern translations.

Sapper Redux said:

---

There are multiple copies of different books from the Second Temple period and the English translation history is a mess. What makes you certain the version you have today is the correct version?

---

You wouldn't understand

Quote:

---

the Bible is not inerrant because of factual inaccuracies that do not tie to multiple historical sources. Major things like did the exodus really happen?

---

The historicity of the Exodus is something I know quite a bit about. We cannot "prove" whether it happened or not since it did occur about 3500 years ago. However, while there is significant evidence for it, there is no evidence of which I am aware that it did not occur.