Is The Bible Inerrant?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asserted perfection not Awareness. Inerrancy means 100% accuracy, right? How is that different from perfection? On the other hand, I did not assert that evidence is required. Awareness did. He did not stipulate that perfection is necessary, so I don't see where you got that. I am accepting inerrancy as a given on this forum. What is required to answer these questions is a theology of inspiration. According to the testimony here so far, WL did not supply one. As I recall, the closest he came was in his discussions of the "principle of incarnation."

I quoted two posts and somewhat put them together.

I don't see inerrant as 100% "accurate." For me inerrant is without errors, that is, substantive errors which seriously affect our faith. That's why I ask where are these errors that cause the Bible we have to be not inerrant? The demands of so-called "perfection" are even more unnecessary.

For example, if numerous manuscripts use the aorist tense and others use the perfect tense for a certain verb in a certain verse, is that an error? Is this verse no longer inerrant? It appeared to me like awareness felt it would be errant, since we don't have the original autograph to decide which tense is correct. By your using the word "perfection," apparently you also would see errancy in my proposed verse.

How do you define a "theology of inspiration."