Originally Posted by Traverse
Salutations to all.
In a recent thread the subject of the bible being inerrant came up. It was shared by a participant in that thread that it might be more suitable to have a new thread on the subject.
So what do you think? I understand what the catholic church teaches on the matter, that it is inerrant, and I also understand that many denominations believe such as well. But it is certainly the habit of some to consider it a product of its time, a book written by infallible men about their experiences with God and nothing more.
I do not see the logic in believing in God when you learn from Him in a book that you do not trust. I see those who suggest that the bible is not inerrant, yet able to derive teaching from it where they see fit, as an unjustifiable means of gaining knowledge. I do not understand how they discern what to dismiss in the word and what to hold fast to.
Any thoughts and opinions?
My view is that the entire focus of the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Various writers wrote of events in the New Testament from their point of view. The specific/minor details of their accounts may differ simply based on their personal experience. That in no way negates the inerrancy of the story or the central purpose of the narrative. What I have seen is that some people would pan the entire Bible based on the narrative written from different perspectives. That sort of logic would mean that almost every court testimony would be worthless.