Obviously not. Although there are some confused people who might say that, that's generally not what people mean when they say that Scripture is "inerrant". In fact, it's not just Protestants who make claims of Scripture's "innerancy", although as you have noted, different people/groups can mean different things by this. So at what point does it become "Bibliolatry"? Here's what some Orthodox sources say (although they're from the OCA, so it may just be a "Western" thing.) You guys tell me how well these reflect the general Orthodox attitude (click on the links if you want to see how they put it in context with Tradition):
For the Orthodox, the Bible is the main written source of divine doctrine since God Himself inspired its writing by His Holy Spirit (see 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:20). This is the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, namely that men inspired by God wrote the words which are truly their own human words -- all words are human! -- but which nevertheless may be called all together the Word of God. Thus, the Bible is the Word of God in written form because it contains not merely the thoughts and experiences of men, but the very self-revelation of God. http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=3
***
The Bible is central in the life of the Church and gives both form and content to the Church's liturgical and sacramental worship, just as to its theology and spiritual life. Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical. http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=32&SID=3
***
The Bible is called the written Word of God. This does not mean that the Bible fell from heaven ready made. Neither does this mean that God dictated the Bible word for word to men who were merely His passive instruments. It means that God has revealed Himself as the true and living God to His People, and that as one aspect of His divine self-revelation God inspired His People to produce scriptures, i.e., writings which constitute the true and genuine expressions of His Truth and His Will for His People and for the whole world.
The words of the Bible are human words, for indeed, all words are human. They are human words, however, which God Himself inspired to be written in order to remain as the scriptural witness to Himself. As human words, the words of the Bible contain all of the marks of the men who wrote them, and of the time and the culture in which they were written. Nevertheless, in the full integrity of their human condition and form, the words of the Bible are truly the very Word of God.
The Bible is truly the Word of God in human form because its origin is not in man but in God, Who willed and inspired its creation. In this sense, the Bible is not like any other book. In the Bible, in and through the words of men, one finds the self-revelation of God and can come to a true and genuine knowledge of Him and His will and purpose for man and the world. In and through the Bible, human persons can enter into communion with God.
All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17).
It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true. http://www.archdiocese.ca/home/homeScripture.htm
The RC's go even further (again, click the link to see how they relate this to their particular view of Tradtion):
The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical "because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church". The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
All I am willing to say is that I believe the people who collected and preserved these ancient writings were not fools for recognizing the treasures therein, and I take it on faith that the Scriptures, Old Testament and New, are a primary source of God's revelation to mankind. Also, I hold the opinion that whatever we might find disturbing is not to be simply discarded (I have first-hand experience of the results of this, and it ain't pretty), because further examination or interpretation might reveal treasures that we never could have imagined we might find.
Infallibility should be defined, as different groups understand the concept differently. A parallel example is the word "saved." The difference between what we Orthodox consider "saved" and most if not all Protestants do, is like night and day.
Consider the word "sin," the central term in Christian theology. It's understanding in the west is diametrically opposite to that of the east, like night and day.
So, we are very much talking right past each other, using the same terminology but not the meaning.
Until we know what we mean when we say the Bible is (in)fallible, we cannot have a constructive discussion. My definition can be summarized as follows: does the Old Testament reflect accurately God, as we know Him through Jesus Christ? I say I don't see it. The Church say it does if the Old Testament is interpreted correctly. I ask for correct interpretation of examples of alleged divine cruelty and I get nothing. In short: I am not convinced because all I do is express doubt and all the other side does is make extraordinary claims without extraordinary proofs!
The Protestants are not too far apart. They simply sya the Bible isthe word of God. When I ask the how do they know that, they tell me they are "guided by the Holy Spirit." When I ask them to show me that this is so, they can't. I am not covninced! Again, I express doubts and the other side makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary proofs!
When exactly did "inspired" become synonymous with "infallible?" yes, of course the scriputrees are inspired, something or someone inspired (i.e. moved, animated) the authors to sit down and start writing.
The fact that they called bats birds to me means that they wrote most of the book and not God, even if God served as their inspiration to write by certain revelations about the world, for God would not deliberately mislead people into making factual errors because God is not the source of corruption; we are.
Also, I hold the opinion that whatever we might find disturbing is not to be simply discarded (I have first-hand experience of the results of this, and it ain't pretty), because further examination or interpretation might reveal treasures that we never could have imagined we might find
That may very well be true. It certainly rings that way. But we are the stories about Sabbaths rmeind us that we are judged by the intent, not the act itself. As you posted in your next post, St. John of Damascus reminds us of that when he talks about the "breaking" of the Sabbath, and Jewish obssessive-compulsive traditions regarding mitzvot.
It is utterly un-Orthodox to argue that if we discard or doubt something in the Bible it's not gonna be pretty. You will never be sent to hell in the Orthodox Church, you will never be subject of fire and brimstone terrorist approach to "loving" God with all our hearts and minds and soul.
One way, it seems, we know God is through love and mercy. The latter seems to be absent in all living beings except in (some of) us, in whom it exists as a divine potential, which we can either nourish for the good, or we can abuse it for evil ends.
God—our Christian God—does not draw us by fear but through love. People run away from that which is fearful, which is why som many in th west have abandoned the wrathful God. How can you love a tyrant?
And is it not scriptural that our Christian God does not return evil for evil? But rather provides us with more blessings? How can then such things as earthquakes and tsunamis and what not be seen as God's wrath? And how does the OT God's drowing of the entire world reflect that Christ who never returns evil for evil?
I can agree with your first quote. The second is more troublesome:
“Nothing in the Orthodox Church can be opposed to what is revealed in the Bible. Everything in the Church must be biblical.”
That’s not well put at all. Nothing in the Orthodox Church is opposed to what is in fact revealed in the Bible, but that really isn’t saying much. It all depends on what is in fact revealed. Like I have said, it is not true, nor is it revealed nor does The Church teach, that bats are birds. It is simply false that “Everything in the bible must be biblical” unless the out is the fact that Christ did many things which are not recorded. This is the sort of loose talk for which the OCA and the Antiochians, and for that matter some of the clowns we have for professors at the GOA seminary, have been engaging in for the past 30 years or so and which accelerated when the Antiochians allowed a whole protestant sect into Orthodoxy and ordained their “priests”. Luckily, their westernizing and heretical teaching as been recognized for what it is and they are being marginalized.
The first paragraph of the third quote is fine. The second is likely correct but potentially dangerous. The final sentence of the third is definitely true only within the context of The Church. The Church doesn’t properly opine on what happens outside The Church in this regard. Obviously the fourth is fine. The fifth is likely OK as far as it goes but again, its not well worded.
ZS, these quotes from the OCA are an example of why the likes of Kosta and I will tell people that you cannot come to a true understanding of Orthodoxy without living it. Words on a page just don’t do, though words might bring someone to a point where they might begin to live out Orthodoxy.
“The RC’s go even further....”
I’m not surprised.
ZS: Obviously not. Although there are some confused people who might say that, that's generally not what people mean when they say that Scripture is "inerrant".
Of course bats really WERE birds because the Bible says so. This type of argument [e.g. whale/fish] may be the single one I have with Apostolics that mystifies me the most. Calling anything by a name, or saying it is a bird or a fish or a mammal is simply a man-made classification system. It has no relationship to what is "true" since we can choose to classify things in any way we want and it will make no difference whatsoever (as long as it is internally consistent). Some classifications systems have proved more detailed over time so we say they are "better" or more "useful". That is fine, but it does not make the earlier systems "wrong".
The earlier system presumably called all winged animals "birds". That was not WRONG, as it seemed to serve their purposes just fine. It was only later that someone decided to make up a new classification system. That's fine too, but it has nothing to do with the truth of the earlier system. It is simply a DIFFERENT system.
According to this article, How Linnaeus named life on Earth, apparently some guy named Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish naturalist, came up with something very close to the current system just under 300 years ago. So, do we say that he PROVED the Bible wrong? Of course not. He just decided to call things by different names, and lots of people signed on. No problem, but it has nothing to do with the Bible. I could make up a new classification system myself that might put men and dolphins in the same group, but not sheep, based on intelligence. This would be correct, but it would NOT prove Linnaeus or the Bible wrong because we "disagreed".