Is The Bible Inerrant?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If that were true then the epistles' of Paul "mostly do not matter".

You really didn't understand what I was saying. I state that so many of the variants of understanding are really not that important and you conclude that to imply that the epistles of Paul don't matter?

What kind of stupidity is that?

There have been so many posts since #1 in which I clearly stated contrary to that and you say that now. What a joke!!

Do you just like creating controversies that do not exist? Putting words into others' mouths so that you can deride them?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have the cart before the horse. Believing that scripture is inerrant is what makes us realize our interpretations are erroneous when they make mess. Once we have a mess it is very difficult to figure out what caused it, where the error is, because we have previously assumed there was no error. However, once you discard the belief that scripture is inerrant you can dismiss the errors as a result of scripture and not your erroneous interpretation. This opens the door to dismiss scripture, as WL did when he pooh poohed the idea of righteousness in Psalms, James, and Proverbs.

You miss the difference between "inerrancy" as often espoused and "God breathed" as the scripture declares of itself.

Lee didn't even believe in "God breathed" concerning James. Oh, he said that God put it there as an example of error. But that is a dodge. He really wanted to exclude it from the canon of scripture. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, so he came up with that excuse. Same with the Psalms (or many of them).

Backing away from the extreme claims that "inerrancy" puts on scripture does not diminish them in the least.

And backing down from the extremes of inerrancy does not increase errors or keep us from realizing our ridiculous misinterpretations. It would seem that the most common places where inerrancy is proclaimed the loudest is in conjunction with errant declarations as to what that inerrant scripture means. In effect, it is too often used as a descriptor of the interpretation of scripture rather than of the scripture itself.

I agree that the scripture itself is without error. But saying that does not make my favorite interpretation correct. Neither does it help to prove that it is either correct or incorrect. It only declares that the words from which I/they got the interpretation are, themselves, without error.