I wish there was a "sort of" option. I don't accept full inerrancy, i.e. there are some things that are false (some scientific assertions for example); however, it is inerrant in terms of spiritual and religious truths. I chose "no" because I do not agree with the conservative fundamental understanding of inerrancy.
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts." From Wikipedia.
Point is, if you say that the Bible is fully inerrant, then you have to accept the "scientific assertions" it makes such as that the sun stopped in the sky for Joshua. If you say it isn't inerrant, then what is the point? If it is wrong, how can it be true? How can something false be from God?
The opposite of inerrancy is no doubt Errancy. It really is matter of using the Word, and concluding that some parable, like the Gates Parable (take it that the Wolf is kept out), the Sheep discuss that: Yaah! that won I thought was an error, or maybe instead, saying "thank you all the time" OR "actions speak louder than words" was an error. I think Voltaire had something to say about this. Anybody like Voltaire bashing. (You know, He's the flip side of Bill Maher: He believes in the Church Being doomed to failure for saving it's Body in adavance. Does God care?):cheers2:
So what is the problem that we don't have to believe in the truth all the time. As 'As the truth shall set you free', you will find three fingers pointing back at yo'; the thinking was well thought out by genius's in advance for the falsehood to discuss.
I believe in the Bible’s inerrancy but I don’t believe people’s interpretations or translations as being inerrant. You must also understand that the Bible is also talking to people in their common language so the common man will understand, thus to say something like; well the Bible says that the Sun rises in the east and we all know that it’s the rotation of the Earth and not the Sun moving so the Bible is inaccurate is being overly exacting. As for scientific accuracy, the Bible although never intended to be a book of science, is amazingly accurate when it touches on science, for a book that was written supposedly by people with very little scientific knowledge.
The bible does not depend on the contradiction for the individual cleric usage in the religious service and trans-substantiation. The Samaritan woman truly becomes blessed by Jesus and the will for realizing her new fold for trust in God came from that portion in the bible where "she" came in touch with the water she was carrying, laboring, and that it eventually from Christ's message mattered little for the justice of objects being frustrating; the thirst was anew for knowledge of her ego in touch with the mercy from God above. She even needed no bribing or converting to belong in the Love of the congregation: truly she met the Messiah they were waiting for: "this man is the worker of amazing gifts and miracles" she finally claimed and for the future she needed no effort. I apparently still do was made by my fellow christian. This is not a contradiction in the scriptures; but my wisdom of knowledge may have the key contradiction; that my efforts DO (unlike the Samaritan's) feel less in vain. "In God we Trust"; now is that in errancy?:love:
Yes. Since God is without flaw, then inspiration would also be without flaw because how can anything that originate from God be errant?
I think the more that science becomes involved and evolves...the more the bible will be proven inerrant.
