Why believe the Bible?

[ZackMartin]

Hi

This is a question I would like to ask Christians: Why believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

My own perspective: I believe in God, I believe in an afterlife, I believe in objective right and wrong, in faith, in various other things Christians believe in. But I don't believe in any inerrant scripture. I think it is possible that some scriptures (such as the Bible, but maybe not exclusively it) are partially inspired, which is to say that the Word of God is present in them, but I do not believe that any scripture (the Bible or any other) is the perfect, unadulterated Word of God. I think it is possible that some of the Bible is true, but I'm not convinced that all of it is. Just as I believe that the Bible contains partial truth intermixed with error, I am open to the possibility that the scriptures of other religions may also contain partial truth intermixed with error.

Main arguments I am familiar with (am I missing any):

1] The manuscript evidence - we have good evidence that the Gospels, for instance, as we know them today, are substantially the same as they were when they were first widely published. (Notice I said "widely published", not "originally written" - I think the manuscript evidence demonstrates the former, but not the latter - it is compatible with some textual evolution after the text was first written but before it was widely distributed - say in the first few years or decades of its existence - I think the Synoptic problem makes this aspect obvious) But, I don't think this is proof that what they report is actually true, simply that the reports have not been modified since their first widespread distribution. It disproves some of the more crazed conspiracy theories about the Bible (e.g. the Catholic Church rewrote half of it in the Middle Ages), but it doesn't prove the original autographs were inerrant.

Also, the Gospels are rather different from say Caesar's Gallic War - a text they are often compared to in terms of manuscript evidence. No one claims that Caesar's Gallic War is error-free, yet people make this claim with respect to the Gospels. There is little motivation for people to change the text of the Gallic War to suit your own views (if Julius Caesar doesn't agree with you, so what?) - there is much more motivation to change the Gospels (people want Jesus to say what they want him to say). Of course the manuscript evidence excludes this happening across a big chunk of history, but I don't think it excludes this happening in the early years of the texts existence, nor in the oral traditions which lead to the creation of the texts.

2] The Resurrection - let's just agree that the Resurrection really happened and Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead. I don't see how that proves the Gospels, much less the rest of the NT, are an error-free account. Maybe they are correct about the Resurrection, but got some of the details of it the wrong. (The idea that they did get some of the details wrong, seems a pretty straightforward explanation of the apparent contradictions between the different Resurrection accounts - quite possibly a more straightforward explanation than any attempt to harmonise those apparent contradictions.) Even if the Gospels are true that Jesus rose from the dead, how does that guarantee that their accounts of his teachings are correct? Maybe they have omitted some important points, or misunderstood or distorted some aspects, or misrepresented ideas that developed later as Jesus's own, etc.? There is no contradiction between believing in the Resurrection, and believing that the Bible is errant and only partially inspired.

3] Jesus claims to be God, Lord/Lunatic/Liar, etc. - suppose I agree that Jesus is (somehow) God, although we can endlessly about exactly how that somehow is. Why accept the Gospels (and Acts, Epistles and Revelation) as an accurate account of his teaching? There is no contradiction in believing Jesus to be God, and simultaneously believing that the Gospels,Epistles,etc are an imperfect error-prone account of his teachings and doings.

4] Eyewitness accounts - It is claimed that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Yet since most of these eyewitnesses are unnamed, and not linked to specific passages, it is very hard to judge how reliable they are, how distant the author of the text is from the eyewitness (is the author the eyewitness? did they hear it directly from an eyewitness? secondhand? thirdhand? the text doesn't say). The main evidence that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, is their own claims to be - what if those claims are wrong (or more likely, in part truthful, but overstating the case). Besides, we know from psychology that eyewitnesses often have errors in recollection - just because it is an eyewitness account, does not mean it is free from error.

5] Martyrdom - people won't die for what they know to be lies - no they won't. But they will die for honest misunderstandings, unintentional distortions, genuine belief in falsehoods, for someone else's lies which they have honestly believed. Just because someone is willing to die for something, doesn't make it true. Followers of all religions and none have been willing to die for their beliefs - that doesn't prove those beliefs are true.

6] Fulfilment of prophecies - it is said that numerous Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled. I think for a claimed fulfilment of prophecy to be convincing, it has to be clear that (1) the event actually happened as described [as opposed to the event being made up completely, or an account of a real event which vaguely matched the prophecy being embellished until it matches it more accurately]; (2) that the prophecy pre-existed the event [as opposed to either the prophecy being made up after the event, or the words of a prophecy which vaguely matched some event being adjusted later to match the event more closely]; (3) that the prophecy was precise [if a prophecy is sufficiently vague, it's not hard to find things to fulfil it]; (4) that the prophecy is not a foreseeable inevitability ("The King will die" is not a good prophecy, because it's obvious to everyone it is true.... "The King will die tomorrow" is much better, assuming there are no known reasons to think he will, such as illness, assassination plots, enemy armies at the gates, etc.); (5) that the event was not intentionally (or unconsciously) brought about people who knew about the prophecy and wanted it to come true. Considering all those criteria, I'm not convinced that any biblical prophecy meets them all.

7] Moral improvement in believer's lives, etc. - many religions claim this. You'd need unquestionable evidence that the improvement due to Christianity was greater than that due to any other religion. I don't think there is any such unquestionable evidence.

8] Miracles - you need proof they actually happened. Many religions have claimed their founders worked miracles. Even if they all did actually happen, that doesn't mean that some account of them written years later is correct in every detail. Maybe Jesus really worked miracles as described in the Gospels - that doesn't prove he said all the things the Gospels claims he said, nor does it prove that the Gospels have not omitted important points of Jesus' teaching, nor distorted

9] Impact on history - the OT/NT had a big impact on history. But so did the Quran and the Tripitaka. Having a big impact on history doesn't prove you are right

10] Distance between the claimed events and the authorship of the accounts and/or the earliest surviving manuscripts is less for NT than for other claimed scriptures - That may well be true. But I still don't think it is conclusive evidence that the NT is error-free. Maybe it justifies a belief that the NT has less errors than other scriptures, but it doesn't prove it is free of errors. In any event, dating manuscripts and texts is an inexact science, and there's at least some evidence to suggest that scholars are influenced by their personal beliefs in these judgements (e.g. conservative scholars tend to date the Gospels earlier than liberal ones - you could accuse both groups of interpreting the evidence in such a way as to best serve their personal religious beliefs.)

11] The Bible says it is inspired and inerrant - (including but not limited to 2 Timothy 3:16) - a circular argument. Just because a text claims to be free of errors, doesn't mean it is.

So based on the above, while I do believe in God, etc., I am not convinced that the Bible is entirely true. I'd say, with any text, the natural assumption is that it most likely contains a mixture of truth and error - very few texts contain no truth, and very few texts contain no error, but of course the proportions of mixture varies from text to text. You don't assume the newspaper is inerrant... you don't assume the dictionary is inerrant... for almost all texts you encounter, you assume that they possibly contain errors, and all else being equal, the longer the text, the greater the likelihood there are errors in it - so if people want to argue that some text is inerrant, the burden should be on them to prove it.

Zack

[headheart]

This is an interesting topic choice. It's been brushed at here as well. Take care. Eric

[shunyadragon]

Hi

This is a question I would like to ask Christians: Why believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

My own perspective: I believe in God, I believe in an afterlife, I believe in objective right and wrong, in faith, in various other things Christians believe in. But I don't believe in any inerrant scripture. I think it is possible that some scriptures (such as the Bible, but maybe not exclusively it) are partially inspired, which is to say that the Word of God is present in them, but I do not believe that any scripture (the Bible or any other) is the perfect, unadulterated Word of God. I think it is possible that some of the Bible is true, but I'm not convinced that all of it is. Just as I believe that the Bible contains partial truth intermixed with error, I am open to the possibility that the scriptures of other religions may also contain partial truth intermixed with error.

Main arguments I am familiar with (am I missing any):

I believe the Bible is a record of what the writers believed at the time they wrote. The facts of history basically support this view. Believing the Bible contains partial truth intermixed with error will always have its pitfalls, because one may selectively justify individual events and beliefs based on presumptions of belief related to ones belief system.

I am not willing to justify my belief on a selective sorting of facts.

1] The manuscript evidence - we have good evidence that the Gospels, for instance, as we know them today, are substantially the same as they were when they were first widely published. (Notice I said "widely published", not "originally written" - I think the manuscript evidence demonstrates the former, but not the latter - it is compatible with some textual evolution after the text was first written but before it was widely distributed - say in the first few years or decades of its existence - I think the Synoptic problem makes this aspect obvious) But, I don't think this is proof that what they report is actually true, simply that the reports have not been modified since their first widespread distribution. It disproves some of the more crazed conspiracy theories about the Bible (e.g. the Catholic Church rewrote half of it in the Middle Ages), but it doesn't prove the original autographs were inerrant.

Actually, the weaknesses in the claims of the origins make it impossible to "prove" (bad word) nor "disprove" (bad word) the beliefs of traditional Christianity, nor so 'called' conspiracy theories.

Also, the Gospels are rather different from say Caesar's Gallic War - a text they are often compared to in terms of manuscript evidence. No one claims that Caesar's Gallic War is error-free, yet people make this claim with respect to the Gospels. There is little motivation for people to change the text of the Gallic War to suit your own views (if Julius Caesar doesn't agree with you, so what?) - there is much more motivation to change the Gospels (people want Jesus to say what they want him to say). Of course the manuscript evidence excludes this happening across a big chunk of history, but I don't think it excludes this happening in the early years of the texts existence, nor in the oral traditions which lead to the creation of the texts.

Agreed.

2] The Resurrection - let's just agree that the Resurrection really happened and Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead.

Will not agree based on the historical and textural nature of the Bible. This represents the problem of being selective concerning what is true and what is error based on presumptions of belief. I have my belief concerning the nature of the events surrounding the death of Jesus and the events after his death, but I will not selectively juggle the books to separate truth from error to support my beliefs. There are legitimate 'other' interpretations based on the evidence other than those that support the traditional view of the 'Resurrection.'

I don't see how that proves the Gospels, much less the rest of the NT, are an error-free account. Maybe they are correct about the Resurrection, but got some of the details of it the wrong. (The idea that they did get some of the details wrong, seems a pretty straightforward explanation of the apparent contradictions between the different Resurrection accounts - quite possibly a more straightforward explanation than any attempt to harmonise those apparent contradictions.) Even if the Gospels are true that Jesus rose from the dead, how does that guarantee that their accounts of his teachings are correct? Maybe they have omitted some important points, or misunderstood or distorted some aspects, or misrepresented ideas that developed later as Jesus's own, etc.? There is no contradiction between believing in the Resurrection, and believing that the Bible is errant and only partially inspired.

The problem is selective believing in facts to support ones beliefs.

3] Jesus claims to be God, Lord/Lunatic/Liar, etc. - suppose I agree that Jesus is (somehow) God, although we can endlessly about exactly how that somehow is. Why accept the Gospels (and Acts, Epistles and Revelation) as an accurate account of his teaching? There is no contradiction in believing Jesus to be God, and simultaneously believing that the Gospels,Epistles,etc are an imperfect error-prone account of his teachings and doings.

Old ragged false argument to justify ones own beliefs. Selective believing in 'parts' of the NT to support ones beliefs remains a problem.

4] Eyewitness accounts - It is claimed that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Yet since most of these eyewitnesses are unnamed, and not linked to specific passages, it is very hard to judge how reliable they are, how distant the author of the text is from the eyewitness (is the author the eyewitness? did they hear it directly from an eyewitness? secondhand? thirdhand? the text doesn't say). The main evidence that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, is their own claims to be - what if those claims are wrong (or more likely, in part truthful, but overstating the case). Besides, we know from psychology that eyewitnesses often have errors in recollection - just because it is an eyewitness account, does not mean it is free from error.

5] Martyrdom - people won't die for what they know to be lies - no they won't. But they will die for honest misunderstandings, unintentional distortions, genuine belief in falsehoods, for someone else's lies which they have honestly believed. Just because someone is willing to die for something, doesn't make it true. Followers of all religions and none have been willing to die for their beliefs - that doesn't prove those beliefs are true.

Bottom line there is no evidence that the accounts represent eyewitness accounts.

6] Fulfilment of prophecies - it is said that numerous Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled. I think for a claimed fulfilment of prophecy to be convincing, it has to be clear that (1) the event actually happened as described [as opposed to the event being made up completely, or an account of a real event which vaguely matched the prophecy being embellished until it matches it more accurately]; (2) that the prophecy pre-existed the event [as opposed to either the prophecy being made up after the event, or the words of a prophecy which vaguely matched some event being adjusted later to match the event more closely]; (3) that the prophecy was precise [if a prophecy is sufficiently vague, it's not hard to find things to fulfil it]; (4) that the prophecy is not a foreseeable inevitability ("The King will die" is not a good prophecy, because it's obvious to everyone it is true.... "The King will die tomorrow" is much better, assuming there are no known reasons to think he will, such as illness, assassination plots, enemy armies at the gates, etc.); (5) that the event was not intentionally (or unconsciously) brought about people who knew about the prophecy and wanted it to come true. Considering all those criteria, I'm not convinced that any biblical prophecy meets them all.

The actual gospel accounts of fulfillment of prophecy are weak and contain obvious errors concerning the meaning of OT scripture.

7] Moral improvement in believer's lives, etc. - many religions claim this. You'd need unquestionable evidence that the improvement due to Christianity was greater than that due to any other religion. I don't think there is any such unquestionable evidence.

Anecdotal at best.

8] Miracles - you need proof they actually happened. Many religions have claimed their founders worked miracles. Even if they all did actually happen, that doesn't mean that some account of them written years later is correct in every detail. Maybe Jesus really worked miracles as described in the Gospels - that doesn't prove he said all the things the Gospels claims he said, nor does it prove that the Gospels have not omitted important points of Jesus' teaching, nor distorted

Claims of miracles are weak at best in ALL ancient accounts and biographies, and to common to be relied on as fact.

9] Impact on history - the OT/NT had a big impact on history. But so did the Quran and the Tripitaka. Having a big impact on history doesn't prove you are right

True. the writings of Confucius probably has the greatest impact on a larger persentage of the world population than any other ancient writings in the history of the world.

10] Distance between the claimed events and the authorship of the accounts and/or the earliest surviving manuscripts is less for NT than for other claimed scriptures - That may well be true. But I still don't think it is conclusive evidence that the NT is error-free. Maybe it justifies a belief that the NT has less errors than other scriptures, but it doesn't prove it is free of errors. In any event, dating manuscripts and texts is an inexact science, and there's at least some evidence to suggest that scholars are influenced by their personal beliefs in these judgements (e.g. conservative scholars tend to date the Gospels earlier than liberal ones - you could accuse both groups of interpreting the evidence in such a way as to best serve their personal religious beliefs.)

There is abundant evidence in history where records of events and biographies of people have been altered and window dressed even when modern writing and records exist at the time the events occured.

11] The Bible says it is inspired and inerrant - (including but not limited to 2 Timothy 3:16) - a circular argument. Just because a text claims to be free of errors, doesn't mean it is.

Circular reasoning like this never works. The text as we know the Bible did not exist at the time the claims were made.

[headheart]

Circular reasoning like this never works. The text as we know the Bible did not exist at the time the claims were made.

Hold on a second there dragon-man you're getting far too hot with your assumptions. Now we are talking about 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and if you do a little study and commentary instead of just saying the first thing that comes into your head and maybe check out the context you'd be able to deliver something a bit more informed than this tiny flame.

Oink.
Eric.

[pancreasman]

Hold on a second there dragon-man you're getting far too hot with your assumptions. Now we are talking about 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and if you do a little study and commentary instead of just saying the first thing that comes into your head and maybe check out the context you'd be able to deliver something a bit more informed than this tiny flame.

Oink.
Eric.

Repeat: At the time 2 Timothy was written there was no written or at least complete NT. The text most likely refers to the Jewish scriptures.

[ZackMartin]

I believe the Bible is a record of what the writers believed at the time they wrote. The facts of history basically support this view. Believing the Bible contains partial truth intermixed with error will always have its pitfalls, because one may selectively justify individual events and beliefs based on presumptions of belief related to ones belief system.

I think we can't help but be selective at some level, and we can't help but follow our own beliefs in doing so. You can speak of the pitfalls in picking which bits of a scripture to accept and which to reject, but how is that fundamentally different from picking which books to accept as scripture and which to reject? If I accept some Biblical passages as valid but not others, how is that fundamentally different from the Christian selecting the Bible as valid, but not the Quran or the Vedas or the Tripitaka? It's still selectivity, it's just the difference between selecting at the level of a choice between texts, and selecting at the level of a choice between different parts of the same text.

In the case of the Bible, it's also helpful to remember that it is not really a text, it's a collection of texts, and there is not universal agreement among Christians about which texts belong to it. In the present time, Catholic and Eastern churches have extra books in the OT (Apocrypha or Deuterocanon or whatever you want to call it.) While right now all mainstream Christianity agrees on the contents of the NT, some books (esp. Revelations) were highly disputed in the first few centuries of Christianity, and as late as the Reformation there were still doubts about certain books (e.g. Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation - while Luther never formally excluded them, he did doubt openly whether they should be in the Bible or not - but in the end Lutheranism kept them.) And then there are all the texts we've got from early Christianity that some groups (e.g. Gnostics) suggested should be in it, but their suggestion was rejected. So how is selecting between parts of a text to accept, different from selecting between which texts to accept as canonical and which not to?

Of course, in any attempt to select within a text, I am influenced by my personal beliefs - but the Christian's choice to accept the Bible and reject the Quran or Vedas or Tripitaka, the Christian's choice to select certain books as part of the Bible and to reject others - these selections will be influenced by their personal beliefs also.

I am not willing to justify my belief on a selective sorting of facts.

Yet that is exactly how historians approach historical texts. No historian will accept that everything Caesar wrote in the Gallic War has to be true. They will take the position, that while he probably got many things right, he probably also got some things wrong (either unintentionally through ignorance or misunderstanding, or more intentionally through a desire to slant the facts to his personal and political advantage.) So, each claim made by Caesar in the text, they will look at and ask - do we have any reasons to suppose this isn't true? Different historians will come to different conclusions about the veracity of what he writes - some will believe him on some points while others will doubt the same points - but none will suppose there is anything invalid or improper in supposing that the text contains some degree of error. If the Gospels are a work of history, as so often claimed, why not treat them in the same way in which we treat all other works of history?

Zack

[ZackMartin]

Hold on a second there dragon-man you're getting far too hot with your assumptions. Now we are talking about 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and if you do a little study and commentary instead of just saying the first thing that comes into your head and maybe check out the context you'd be able to deliver something a bit more informed than this tiny flame.

I think we need to distinguish between valid and invalid interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:14-16. An invalid interpretation is a circular one that goes "2 Timothy 3:14-16 says the Bible is true, therefore the Bible is true". A valid one would be something like "2 Tim 3:14-16 says that the OT is inspired, so if we accept 2 Tim as inspired, then we should accept the OT as inspired also". So I'm not objecting to the valid interpretations, just the invalid ones (which you can't deny some Christians make, albeit ones who are not among the best defenders that Christianity has.)

The thing about the valid interpretations though, is they don't help answer the question for the non-Christian theist, or the liberal Christian who adheres to partial/limited inspiration, "why accept the Bible as inerrant/inspired"? If you believe the Bible contains errors, then this passage could contain errors too; if you believe that the Bible is less than fully inspired, then this passage could be one of the uninspired parts, or one of the less than fully inspired parts.

Zack

[Juice]

Hi Zack.

Zack your OP title is - Why believe the Bible?


But in your OP you ask -

Why believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

Though these two questions may indeed be related in that if the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God we should believe it. But having said that, they are fundamentally different questions. One’s reasons for believing what the Bible records may not be necessarily related to whether one holds to inerrancy or inspiration. Indeed, one could believe the Bible (or at least the majority of it let’s say) for reasons that have nothing to with inerrancy or inspiration.

So I’m not really sure where you are going with this.

So based on the above, while I do believe in God, etc., I am not convinced that the Bible is entirely true.

Why would it be necessary for you to be convinced that the Bible is entirely true for you to embrace the Christian faith?

[Whag]

Hi Zack.

Zack your OP title is - Why believe the Bible?


But in your OP you ask -

Though these two questions may indeed be related in that if the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God we should believe it. But having said that, they are fundamentally different questions. One’s reasons for believing what the Bible records may not be necessarily related to whether one holds to inerrancy or inspiration. Indeed, one could believe the Bible (or at least the majority of it let’s say) for reasons that have nothing to with inerrancy or inspiration.

So I’m not really sure where you are going with this.

Why would it be necessary for you to be convinced that the Bible is entirely true for you to embrace the Christian faith?

All you've really acknowledged here is that there are different degrees of Christian belief. What's the baseline belief that Christianity requires? Can one conclude the story of Abraham and Isaac uninspired and still be a Christian? What of Exodus and Moses' miracles?

[Chrawnus]

All you've really acknowledged here is that there are different degrees of Christian belief. What's the baseline belief that Christianity requires? Can one conclude the story of Abraham and Isaac uninspired and still be a Christian? What of Exodus and Moses' miracles?

One can believe that every single word of the Bible is uninspired and still be a Christian. In fact, one can believe that every part of the Bible is true, and still not believe that the Bible is inspired.

There's a difference between believing that the Bible is true and that the Bible is inspired, you see.

[Juice]

Chrawnus addressed this but I'll chime in too...

All you've really acknowledged here is that there are different degrees of Christian belief. What's the baseline belief that Christianity requires? Can one conclude the story of Abraham and Isaac uninspired and still be a Christian? What of Exodus and Moses' miracles?

Your argument seems to be that the only way for one to be a Christian is to hold to inspiration (and inerrancy?) because the only reason to believe these events happened would be the Bible is inspired. Does that about sum it up?

Couldn't one conclude an event(s) reported in the Bible happened because it passes a reasonable historical method? Couldn't one be a Christian because one believes the Bible provides enough evidence to be a Christian even if it contains some errors and was not inspired? Why would inspiration (and inerrancy?) be a necessary belief for one to be a Christian?

[ZackMartin]

Why believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

Though these two questions may indeed be related in that if the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God we should believe it. But having said that, they are fundamentally different questions. One’s reasons for believing what the Bible records may not be necessarily related to whether one holds to inerrancy or inspiration. Indeed, one could believe the Bible (or at least the majority of it let’s say) for reasons that have nothing to with inerrancy or inspiration.

So I’m not really sure where you are going with this.

Let me put it this way: What does it mean to "believe the Bible"? Does it mean to believe all of its claims, or some of its claims?

If it means believing some of its claims, then certainly I believe the Bible, because some things the Bible claims to be true I believe to be true. Examples: the Bible says God exists, and I believe God exists. The Bible claims Jesus existed, and I'm reasonably confident that he did. (I can't completely rule out the possibility that he didn't, but in historical terms the theory that Jesus existed seems to me to be far more likely than the theory that he didn't - most religious movements don't have mythical founders, especially when the founder is claimed to have lived only a few decades ago, so that means the odds are in favour of Jesus' existence.)

But there are other things the Bible claims, which might be true, but I'm not convinced they are. For example, the Gospels contains a record of Jesus' teaching; and the Epistles contain a record of the Apostles teaching, which they claim is the same teaching which Jesus gave. Is this true? I don't know: obviously if we take them at their word it is. But considering that the NT post-dates Jesus by several decades (exactly how many depends on exactly when you date everything, which is disputed), it also seems possible that some of the teachings ascribed to Jesus were later innovations that have been attributed back to the founder of the movement. I'm not saying definitely this is the case, I'm just saying I don't think we know enough to rule it out. For example, some have suggested that Jesus never taught he was God, but the belief arose after his death, but the accounts of Jesus' teaching in the Gospels were coloured by this later belief - I'm not saying this is true or false, I'm just saying I don't think anyone really knows, both the theory and its denial seem plausible to me. (Personally, I am not bothered either way by the conclusion - once upon a time I was very negative in my thought about the Incarnation, but since then I've become more positive about the possibility, although my own thinking about it is probably not what you'd call "orthodox".)

I have several moral beliefs which don't agree with the Bible. For example, I have always had this strong conviction in my heart that capital punishment was wrong, and I believe that is true always and everywhere for all people. You might not agree with that, fair enough, but my point here is to explain my own thinking processes: Now I weigh this up against the Biblical passages commanding capital punishment (Exodus, Leviticus, etc.) The Bible is something I'm open about, but don't have a strong conviction for or against; the wrongness of capital punishment is something I have a very strong conviction about. So, for me, Biblical inerrancy loses in this exercise - I believe the passages in the Bible commanding capital punishment are in error and uninspired.

So based on the above, while I do believe in God, etc., I am not convinced that the Bible is entirely true.

Why would it be necessary for you to be convinced that the Bible is entirely true for you to embrace the Christian faith?

Depends on how you define "Christian faith" now doesn't it.

I think a lot of my beliefs are reasonably close to liberal Christianity. So it's possible that, if liberal Christianity is our standard, I already am one. However, "liberal Christianity" doesn't seem to me to have a clear definition, so its hard to say.

Protestants tend to put emphasis on "saving faith". And by "faith" they primarily mean an attitude towards Jesus, rather than a set of beliefs - but many of them nonetheless suggest that certain propositional beliefs must go along with that attitude, or else we can't say the attitude is present. So is belief in the inerrancy and plenary inspiration one of those necessary beliefs or not? And even if it is not, maybe I lack one of the other necessary beliefs?

Catholics - I was baptised, confirmed and raised a Catholic. I don't think I am one any more, except in some vague cultural sense, because I've strayed a long way from them in belief and practice. But my understanding is that the Catholic church's view is basically one of "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" - so I might be a heretic, an apostate, etc., but in their mind still a Catholic. And contemporary Catholicism is very reticent to declare anyone necessarily unsaved - since Vatican II, the suggestion has been, endorsed by the current Pope, that non-Christians can be saved, although whether any individual non-Christian is saved is seen as something known only to God (so they believe the only certain route to salvation is faithful Catholicism, whereas some Hindus might be saved too, maybe even some atheists, but that is an uncertain matter.)

Zack

[ZackMartin]

One can believe that every single word of the Bible is uninspired and still be a Christian. In fact, one can believe that every part of the Bible is true, and still not believe that the Bible is inspired.

There's a difference between believing that the Bible is true and that the Bible is inspired, you see.

I think his real question was, how much of the Bible can you not believe, and still be a Christian?

First case: maybe some things the Bible says, you think might be true, but you don't think you really know - agnosticism. How much of the Bible can you be agnostic with respect to and still be a Christian?

Second case: maybe some things the Bible says, you think are definitely false. How much of the Bible can you believe to be false and still be a Christian?

Third case: Take any ancient book of history, by Josephus or Tacitus or whoever, and even without reading it I will say: Almost certainly it contains some errors, even if we don't know for sure which parts are in error. This is just a fact of human fallibility - for any non-fiction book, the longer the book, the more likely it is to contain an error somewhere, so any book of decent length is almost certain to contain an error (unless there is some sort of supernatural error protection being applied.) If we applied the same standards to the Bible we apply to every other book, you'd conclude it contains errors (even in matters of doctrine and morals), even if you couldn't say what those errors were. Can one think like this and still be a Christian?

Zack

[pancreasman]

I think the issue is a tad over-simplified by stating in terms of 'believing the Bible' or not. Different Christians will read the same passage of text and arrive at different interpretations of the same passage (Genesis as read by YEC's and TE proponents is an obvious example.) Both can at least make arguments that they 'believe' the text but take it to mean quite different things. There is no central committee that decides these issues and Christianity covers a broad range of opinion even within denominations never mind across them. Christianity is also fuzzy around the edges and different people will give different opinions as to whether Roman Catholics, Orthodox and then JW or Mormon are 'real' Christians. One may be as inclusive or exclusive as one wants but in the end there is no single right answer.

[shunyadragon]

repeat: At the time 2 timothy was written there was no written or at least complete nt. The text most likely refers to the jewish scriptures.

correct!!!!!!!!