#6 Bible Inerrancy Poll

I didn't vote because I believe this assumes a certain hermeneutic which is not part of revelation.

Can poetry be wrong? How can we judge the Songs of Solomon? Much of the Bible passes revelation to us in the form of stories. What was the intended meaning? Literal History? Philosophical Truth? Both? This poll assumes that which isn't necessarily true.

Depending on one's hermeneutic the Bible can be 'seen' to present facts which are not 'literally' true. If such was the case then it would 'appear' in error. So we have to actually determine from which perspective we view the Bible and determine what God actually desired to reveal to us. This poll assumes an established perspective which isn't actually present in the Bible but simply a hermeneutic which is all together external.

What was the point of this poll?

 

Thanks for pointing that out! :thumbs:

I agree 'most' Baptists don't know what "Inerrancy" means or have their own interpretation of "Inerrancy". I don't believe that there is a wholly objective position to hold an argument of "Inerrancy". Inerrancy is a by-product established by our particular hermeneutic which means our concept of Inerrant is not wholly objective but subjective. So unless one desires to push a limited grasp of reality as objective reality one is going to have to admit that one's Inerrancy of Scripture is a construct limited by one's hermeneutic.

What is your take on this? Thanks again for the thread.

 

When the majority of voters assert that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs exactly what does that mean? Are they saying that it is without error from the point of literal fact void of poetic flourish and artistic license to allude to reality in figurative verse? Can figurative language be inerrant? Can it even be objective?

When the authors of Genesis speak of the sky as a dome in a most primative fashion of their day how are we to suggest that such is an objective grasp of the heavens? At best we can only suggest that such discription is the use of figurative language and at worst a primative and largely ignorant grasp of the nature of our atmosphere and the larger universe. In other passages in the Bible the earth is thought to be a 'table' held up with columns (ie legs) and has given rise to the term "four corners of the earth" and other such non-sense. Again we can describe this as the use of figurative language or a primative and largely ignorant grasp of the nature of the earth. In neither case can we suggest that these are inerrant observations of nature nor attribute any divine perspective to them as they don't appear to hold any unique objectivity which has escaped other authors descriptions of our world.

So I'll ask again... Exactly what do you mean by 'inerrant' either now or in the original autographs? Are you saying that this kind of figurative language is simply not there? Are you saying that the use of figurative language is objectively inerrant? How? Are you saying that in the original autographs everything is literally true? What?

 

Great example but such begs the question why does God use poetic verse to reveal himself? Why the use of poetic license to tell use something? Why not 'direct literal' monologue? What's your take?

BTW, it's been very pleasant dialoguing with you. Thanks for everything. :thumbsup:

 

Barring the spelling errors you should have gotten my question...

You cited a good example of figurative language used in the OT. I felt that begged the question 'why did God not reveal his revelation in a more direct manner than speaking third person through stories'? Not just literal stories but stories filled with figurative language?

Are you following my question? We talk a lot about the Bible but we tend to act as if it was a direct line between man and God when any amount of study reveals it is largely figurative. Now I don't presume to suggest that the Bible isn't full of very interesting facts but by-and-large it is a story about a people who are choosen by God. Now that is very interesting but if such was actually the case why not a more literal revelation instead of a story of one?

Follow me?

 

Yeah me either... :tongue3:

I get that question from Muslim Apologists which is why I asked. One of their criticisms of the Bible is that it is more story than revelation were as the Quran is more 'direct' than story but I'm not here championing the Quran so don't take my comments the wrong way. :laugh:

I was just interested in others point of view on this matter as well as the whole issue of inerrancy.

 

The Bible is inerrant only in the KJV and the Textus Receptus.