Posted by Dinah on July 13, 2011, at 11:05:03
In reply to Inerrancy - what do you think?, posted by hyperfocus on July 13, 2011, at 8:24:40
I think there are a good many Christians in many mainstream denominations who do not believe in inerrancy. I don't see any conflict with this. Believing that the Bible is divinely inspired, and contained God's wishes for us, doesn't mean that one can't believe that there is use of metaphor and parable, or that the writers are human and, even if divinely inspired, write from the understanding arising from their time and culture.
Moreover, the Bible serves more than one purpose. It is a history of a people as well as a guideline for God's wishes for us.
I think it's clear that Jesus used parables to illustrate a point. He didn't expect people to accept his stories as a completely factual tale of a single person. Was there really a Samaritan? A prodigal son? Does it really matter? Why does it matter if Bible writers also wrote to make a point?
I think that we might be applying modern standards of nonfiction to the Bible, and I'm not sure that's a fair standard.
Does the Bible tell us what God wants of us? Do the Bible stories illustrate those points, at least as far as the writers understood it? Which stories are history? How often does history, whether written at the time or years later, contain some factual inaccuracy? Does it really matter?
I don't see that the *truth* of the Bible depends on its inerrancy.
But I have no issue with those who feel differently, though I'd prefer that Christians refrain from claiming exclusive rights to the term.
Sigh. The wider world also often seems to believe that "Christian" means "Fundamentalist". Christianity includes a wide range of beliefs and attitudes.