Biblical Inerrancy Doctrine: A Bridge Too Far

[smithed64]

No, that is not illogical. Its perfectly logical for an error to be on one page and another page be perfectly without error, and even be useful.

Regardless of what the Bible actually has or is, your claim in this post is wrong.

That wasn't what the conversation was about.

Your right, I culd mak an errir hear.

And then correctly type here and you understand what is being said.

But I rephrase, that wasn't what the conversation was about.

The Bible is the truth.
or the Bible is a lie.

It's can't be both.

The Bible is the truth, of God's word about the salvation of mankind and how they should live. We all know this, just some deny it.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Correct interpretation or correct and true extra-biblical revelation, by the spirit of God, often belongs to only the holy, or "set-apart" from the world "Men of God", or, at the very least, the "ways" of the world... They may be in it, but not a part of it, or following, or walking in, the worlds culture, ways or customs... Many who are not, nor were holy or set-apart have caused much confusion... Unfortunately...

God Bless!

There is big confusion any way I think. So many interpretations. So many.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

The Bible is either true or untrue.

If it's true, you take it all.
If its untrue, then ignore it.

It can't be both at the same time or in the same sense. that's illogical.

It's true. But not perfect. Do you believe it's perfect?

 

[timewerx]

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work," (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

A circular argument.

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.

So, to use your car analogy. Even a brand new car will have a scuff somewhere. Doesn't mean the car won't run, nor that it isn't brand new. It just has a scuff or scratch somewhere that you wouldn't know was there unless someone told you.

You changed my car analogy entirely.

I'm previously talking about a car that will not run safely in the rain. It's a direct analogy to a theology that won't stand up against scrutiny which is a more serious problem.

You seem to be trying to make this into a non issue by misquoting or misapplication of words. It's a very strange way of defending what you believe to be true. Not looking good on your crediblity

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That wasn't what the conversation was about.

Your right, I culd mak an errir hear.

And then correctly type here and you understand what is being said.

But I rephrase, that wasn't what the conversation was about.

The Bible is the truth.
or the Bible is a lie.

It's can't be both.

The Bible is the truth, of God's word about the salvation of mankind and how they should live. We all know this, just some deny it.

The Bible is used. Used by the Spirit of God to speak to the heart and to cause people to come into a right relation with God, through Jesus.

It doesn't have to be inerrant to achieve that, because it is the work of the Spirit that does the achieving.

 

[smithed64]

A circular argument.

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.



You changed my car analogy entirely.

I'm previously talking about a car that will not run safely in the rain. It's a direct analogy to a theology that won't stand up against scrutiny which is a more serious problem.

You seem to be trying to make this into a non issue by misquoting or misapplication of words. It's a very strange way of defending what you believe to be true. Not looking good on your crediblity

The part where you say is a circular argument....was Scripture. So you have to bring that up to God. He said it, not I.

No, I didn't change your car analogy. I used my own analogy.

I'm not misquoting anything. I quoted scripture...you called it circular argument...I used my own car analogy...because it makes sense.

I'm not here for my credit....but for the Glory of God and Christ. It isn't about me.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The part where you say is a circular argument....was Scripture. So you have to bring that up to God. He said it, not I.

No, I didn't change your car analogy. I used my own analogy.

I'm not misquoting anything. I quoted scripture...you called it circular argument...I used my own car analogy...because it makes sense.

I'm not here for my credit....but for the Glory of God and Christ. It isn't about me.

Which Bible is inerrant? The one's the Catholics use or the Protestant one?

 

[1213]

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stands on shaky ground.

Inerrancy falls apart if even ONE FACTUAL error is found. I wouldn't want to stake my faith on such...

But is there really any error in the Bible? Can you show one, if you think there is?

 

[Steve Petersen]

But is there really any error in the Bible? Can you show one, if you think there is?

Please read the thread.

 

[smithed64]

The Bible is used. Used by the Spirit of God to speak to the heart and to cause people to come into a right relation with God, through Jesus.

It doesn't have to be inerrant to achieve that, because it is the work of the Spirit that does the achieving.

I agree.

As I said earlier, to someone, can't remember post number. But God gets His message out, know matter how He does it. He does it.

 

[smithed64]

Which Bible is inerrant? The one's the Catholics use or the Protestant one?

The one that points to Christ as the savior. The one that acknowledges that man cannot save Himself. The one who let's you know that you are save by faith, through grace by Christ alone.
The one that tells you to call out to God and seek Him out yourself. The one that tells you , thou shalt not have any other gods before me and thou shalt not worship any graven image.
The one that stipulates that sin, is the reason why God is angry with you and will pour out His wrath on you if you don't repent and place your trust in Jesus.
The one that shows who Christ is and what He did for you and me.

I read the KJV and I use the ESV to study with also. I also study the Greek NT studies. I need to learn Latin, so I can get into the vulgate and check it out.
Would love to learn Aramaic, the original language spoke by Christ.

I don't know enough about the Catholic bible to say, whether it be good or bad, right or wrong.
The KJV, is considered a protestant bible, I guess. I know it isn't what the Catholics use. But they do have the same books in the OT and NT that KJV has, and believe that they haven't changed them to fit their worldview. I did hear though that they changed the 10 commandments in Exodus...but that could have been a rumor...I don't care much about those. I'd rather know for sure.
But I do know enough about the Bible in general. That if anything in any "religion" bible, I say that because you categorized the bible into two different religions, or dogmas, If any one of those, say anything or add anything that is contrary to God's Word, then neither are worth reading. Like for instance, the Jehovah witness, completely rewrote the scriptures that pertain to Christ divinity. Especially John 1:1

In the KJV, it's this"

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

In the KIT, the Jehovah bible:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God.

They added the "a" in there, to take the divinity of Christ away, to say He wasn't God. And every Greek scholar out there, will tell you that even the secular ones, that the way they have done it, is wrong, grammatically and even for interpretation of the Greek. I makes no sense.
But I digress, If any religion changes or adds to the scripture in anyway....they have to answer to God for it. Just ask Him.

Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The one that points to Christ as the savior. The one that acknowledges that man cannot save Himself. The one who let's you know that you are save by faith, through grace by Christ alone.
The one that tells you to call out to God and seek Him out yourself. The one that tells you , thou shalt not have any other gods before me and thou shalt not worship any graven image.
The one that stipulates that sin, is the reason why God is angry with you and will pour out His wrath on you if you don't repent and place your trust in Jesus.
The one that shows who Christ is and what He did for you and me.

I read the KJV and I use the ESV to study with also. I also study the Greek NT studies. I need to learn Latin, so I can get into the vulgate and check it out.
Would love to learn Aramaic, the original language spoke by Christ.

I don't know enough about the Catholic bible to say, whether it be good or bad, right or wrong.
The KJV, is considered a protestant bible, I guess. I know it isn't what the Catholics use. But they do have the same books in the OT and NT that KJV has, and believe that they haven't changed them to fit their worldview. I did hear though that they changed the 10 commandments in Exodus...but that could have been a rumor...I don't care much about those. I'd rather know for sure.
But I do know enough about the Bible in general. That if anything in any "religion" bible, I say that because you categorized the bible into two different religions, or dogmas, If any one of those, say anything or add anything that is contrary to God's Word, then neither are worth reading. Like for instance, the Jehovah witness, completely rewrote the scriptures that pertain to Christ divinity. Especially John 1:1

In the KJV, it's this"

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

In the KIT, the Jehovah bible:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God.

They added the "a" in there, to take the divinity of Christ away, to say He wasn't God. And every Greek scholar out there, will tell you that even the secular ones, that the way they have done it, is wrong, grammatically and even for interpretation of the Greek. I makes no sense.
But I digress, If any religion changes or adds to the scripture in anyway....they have to answer to God for it. Just ask Him.

Revelation 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah. Which version of these books was given by God?

 

[Steve Petersen]

We are drifting away from the point of this thread.

 

[smithed64]

It has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah. Which version of these books was given by God?

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the OldTestament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon or standard writings of Scripture.

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or theapostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

• The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
• Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
• Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Not Prophetic
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

So I see it this way. If Christ didn't quote from them, and He rejected these apocryphal books. Then so will I.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Catholics and Protestants disagree regarding the exact number of books that belong in the OldTestament Scriptures. The dispute between them is over seven books, part of what is known as the Apocrypha: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Wisdom (Wisdom of Solomon), Baruch, Tobit, Judith, and additions to Daniel and Esther.1 However, there are a number of reasons why the Old Testament Apocrypha should not be part of the Canon or standard writings of Scripture.

Rejection by Jesus and the Apostles
1. There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or theapostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

2. Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus' referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Rejection by the Jewish Community
3. The "oracles of God" were given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) and they rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha as part of this inspired revelation. Interestingly, Jesus had many disputes with the Jews, but He never disputed with them regarding the extent of the inspired revelation of God.2

4. The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

5. Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

False Teachings
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

• The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
• Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
• Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

Not Prophetic
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

So I see it this way. If Christ didn't quote from them, and He rejected these apocryphal books. Then so will I.

I did not refer to the apocrypha, but to books that are part of the accepted canon, namely Daniel and Jeremiah!

Can you not answer the question? Which versions of Daniel and Jermiah were God given?

 

[mark46]

I did not refer to the apocrypha, but to books that are part of the accepted canon, namely Daniel and Jeremiah!

Can you not answer the question? Which versions of Daniel and Jermiah were God given?

 

[redblue22]

was that cut and paste?

 

[smithed64]

I did not refer to the apocrypha, but to books that are part of the accepted canon, namely Daniel and Jeremiah!

Can you not answer the question? Which versions of Daniel and Jermiah were God given?

Both,where inspired by God

 

[wayfaring man]

Faith based logic says if Scripture is indeed able to make us wise unto Salvation 2Timothy 3:15 , it stands to reason then that God would ensure that the overall integrity of Scripture would be preserved throughout the ages. And this appears to be the case. at least amongst some translations.

I prefer the KJV with Strong's Concordance w/ Greek & Hebrew Dictionaries. You can download them for free at -
www.e-sword.net

Something I've noticed while studying....having the original tongue is helpful, but most every word has a range of definitions, with many having the potential for a negative and / or a positive context...so having the original tongue / word / definition still doesn't guarantee a correct understanding.

This requires a spiritual component. God's Spirit.

This is why some intellectuals who've studied languages extensively still cannot grasp The Scriptures' deeper meanings, and applications.

Like many of the scribes and pharisees in New Testament records.

One could say - God's written Word is perfect when it is perfectly written upon our hearts and minds....meaning perfectly recognized and understood.

Some possible inconsistencies - Yeshua, should more correctly be Joshua in English not Jesus.

Christ was impaled on a stake, not a cross. The mechanics of speeding up death via suffocation due to having broken legs is more fitting if arms are rather straight up with shoulders then pulling into the neck once the legs could not support the weight of the body.

But neither of these two possible variations do change the essential message of The Gospel.

The idea that the Bible is either 100% accurate or 100% false is not a winning proposition.

I found a half dozen or so typographical errors in the little Nelson KJV I used to carry. Wrote the company informing them....no response....no indication of corrections afterwards either.

But none of those typos changed The Main Message.

Though it would have been better were they corrected.

Some apparent inconsistencies may be due to typos.

Some are potentially due to language barriers.

While other alleged inconsistencies are due to misunderstandings of the context of two or more statements.

While others may appear to contradict because The New Testament significantly revises the emphasis of The Old.

Still quite capable though of 'making us wise unto Salvation.

Amen.

 

[Honoluluwindow]

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy stands on shaky ground.

Inerrancy falls apart if even ONE FACTUAL error is found. I wouldn't want to stake my faith on such.

Inerrancy is often said to be true of the original documents. We don't have those, so this is a non-starter.

Since we don't have the originals, the only way for the Bible to be inerrant would be for God to insure that NO errors crept into the copies. Now we are talking about inspired copies too?

Since the many various biblical manuscripts DO have differences, now you have to sort out which, if any, was the manuscript God intended for us to have.

Even when you settle on the copy that you believe is God-inspired, we don't have the original manuscript to check it against.

Finally, when you talk about Biblical inerrancy, I have to ask, 'Which Bible?' Different Christian groups have had different collections of books in their Bibles throughout history. Which collection of books is the 'true Bible.'

Even between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles you will find differences TODAY. The Catholic bible has a longer version of Daniel and a shorter version of Jeremiah than the Protestant bibles. Which versions of these two books is 'God-inspired?'

So after the modern era can you help me find some changes? Because these changes had to have happened within the last 500 years because I think we can rely on scholars to have kept the texts the same no?
And if not 500 then how about 200? Or a 100?
When exactly did corrupt men quit their meddling? Because my grandpa's bible is word for word as is mine. He was born in 1921.

I'll wait for your thoughts brother.