Biblical Inerrancy Doctrine: A Bridge Too Far

[smithed64]

It's not the misquotes that I'm worried about.

You keep bouncing between different statements. You seem consistent at it. It doesn't look good and looks deceptive.

You may have good intentions. If they are honest mistakes, I advice you do something about it. It doesn't look good.




Whenever you talk about Christ, it's HIS credibility that is at stake, not yours.

I'm afraid to say, our good intentions is not enough. You need to be more careful at the things you're saying. We ought to be gentle as doves but shrewd as a serpent. Try not to leave any holes in your statements but to be clear and consistent.

Okay

I don't even remember what the subject was. So I guess we're done..

God Bless

 

[2404]

God is omniscient and omnipotent so His Word is exactly as He would have it.
If I start to question it I'm on my own.
The religious leaders of Christ's day had it all figured out and they missed the Word when it was manifested in their day.

 

[Steve Petersen]

God is omniscient and omnipotent so His Word is exactly as He would have it.
If I start to question it I'm on my own.
The religious leaders of Christ's day had it all figured out and they missed the Word when it was manifested in their day.

I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question. - Max Tegmark

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God is omniscient and omnipotent so His Word is exactly as He would have it.
If I start to question it I'm on my own.

Amein.
As HIS OWN WORD (WRITTEN) SAYS.
Whoever rejects HIS WORD (WRITTEN)
also rejects HIM.

This is NOT at all the same as rejecting what someone says it says. No, not at all.

 

[corinth77777]

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?'

I don't understand...if you trust in Jesus...and the holy spirit reveals truth......why the question?

 

[redblue22]

I don't understand...if you trust in Jesus...and the holy spirit reveals truth......why the question?

Since no one will talk with me about my horoscope and what it says about the bible, I'll move on.

I give in. The bible is infallible, inerrant, and protected by God through the years. God reveals truth. And I stick to the KJV bible.

My question to anyone: What is the beginning of Genesis about?

 

[DingDing]

Since no one will talk with me about my horoscope and what it says about the bible, I'll move on.

I give in. The bible is infallible, inerrant, and protected by God through the years. God reveals truth. And I stick to the KJV bible.

My question to anyone: What is the beginning of Genesis about?

I see lots of confusion in your post. So where do you want to start? Perhaps a biblical discussion of Genesis, or an unbiblical discussion about your horoscope?

 

[redblue22]

My horoscope earlier said that I would have a good week. And how true it was. I wondered if my horoscopes are true, and right inside my book it says that horoscopes are true. So I'm trusting my next reading to be true.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I see lots of confusion in your post. So where do you want to start? Perhaps a biblical discussion of Genesis, or an unbiblical discussion about your horoscope?

It is not confusion.
it is rebellion against YHWH(GOD), as HE says
it is rejection of HIS RULING. (it is outright and willful disobedience)

 

[redblue22]

The horoscope says that horoscopes are true. What is the problem?

 

[redblue22]

Would you prefer to tell me what the beginning of Genesis is about?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The horoscope says that horoscopes are true. What is the problem?

There are so many documents that claim to be accurate withing themselves. Some of them are even accurate, others are not. It depends on more than that claim, doesn't it?

Hmmmm . . . what about Robert's Rules of Order? They are not self contradictory . . . . are they inerrant? If they were to be evaluated for inerrancy, what evidence could one cite?

 

[Commander Xenophon]

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?'

St. Hilary of Poitiers said that scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading. Therefore, I hold that Scripture as received by the Orthodox church is inerrant, even if there are errors in the text itself.

By the way, what you call the "Catholic Bible," you mean the Deuterocanonical books, the so called Apocrypha. Not all Protestants reject these; they are actually a part of the official King James Version (but most KJVs printed by the Gideons etc lack them), and the Anglican churches, which are Protestant, read from those books during Mattins and Evensong.

The books in question are missing from the Masoretic Text, which is the Jewish Bible, but most Christian Bible translations have included them, even if most Bibles in print right now do not include them.

On the other hand, Martin Luther wanted to delete from the Bible the book of Esther, not just the "additions" which transform it from a Hebrew nationalistic epic into a religious narrative, but the whole book, and he wanted to delete the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations.

Fortunately most Protestants saw the value in these books, although the truncated version of Esther is in my opinion theologically without value (I have difficulty with Judith, in the deuterocanon, as well).

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I am less concerned with translational issues than with textual variants and added or missing documents (in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic etc) that are used as the basis for our bibles.

There are really just two major text types, the so called Alexandrian or minority text, and the Byzantine, or majority text.

The Gospel Books and bibles of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bibles, which are from Alexandria, by the way (whereas one of the two sources of the "Alexandrian" text type was from Sinai, the other, probably from Caesarea), the Ethiopian Ge'ez Bibles, amd the Church Slavonic Bibles, and the Vulgate, as well as the King James Version, more or less follow the Byzantine text type.

But even then, the differences are minor. Like, the longer ending of Mark is missing. Not a big deal. Certainly not a whopper, like the Jehovahs Witnesses Bible rewriting John 1:1 to say "the Word was like God" in order to promote their Arianism.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There are really just two major text types, the so called Alexandrian or minority text, and the Byzantine, or majority text.

The Gospel Books and bibles of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bibles, which are from Alexandria, by the way (whereas one of the two sources of the "Alexandrian" text type was from Sinai, the other, probably from Caesarea), the Ethiopian Ge'ez Bibles, amd the Church Slavonic Bibles, and the Vulgate, as well as the King James Version, more or less follow the Byzantine text type.

But even then, the differences are minor. Like, the longer ending of Mark is missing. Not a big deal. Certainly not a whopper, like the Jehovahs Witnesses Bible rewriting John 1:1 to say "the Word was like God" in order to promote their Arianism.

Look at the canons of the various Christian denominations.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There are really just two major text types, the so called Alexandrian or minority text, and the Byzantine, or majority text.

The Gospel Books and bibles of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bibles, which are from Alexandria, by the way (whereas one of the two sources of the "Alexandrian" text type was from Sinai, the other, probably from Caesarea), the Ethiopian Ge'ez Bibles, amd the Church Slavonic Bibles, and the Vulgate, as well as the King James Version, more or less follow the Byzantine text type.

But even then, the differences are minor. Like, the longer ending of Mark is missing. Not a big deal. Certainly not a whopper, like the Jehovahs Witnesses Bible rewriting John 1:1 to say "the Word was like God" in order to promote their Arianism.

From Wikipedia, Biblical Canon

The Acts of Paul and Thecla, the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, and the Third Epistle to the Corinthians are all portions of the greater Acts of Paul narrative, which is part of a stichometric catalogue of New Testament canon found in the Codex Claromontanus. [This book is found in the canons of the Armenia and Syriac Christian canons.​

The Peshitta excludes 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation, but certain Bibles of the modern Syriac traditions include later translations of those books. Still today, the official lectionary followed by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, present lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is made for the settlement of doctrinal questions.
​

The Orthodox Tewahedo include eight books in their canon that are not part of the other canons.

​

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

St. Hilary of Poitiers said that scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading.

I would never trust anyone who says this.
It is too contrary to everything in SCRIPTURE,
and opposed to what Y'SHUA HIMSELF SAYS.

 

[DingDing]

Would you prefer to tell me what the beginning of Genesis is about?

I think God, through the Book of Genesis, tells us about the beginning. Do you have specific questions about what is recorded?

 

[redblue22]

I think God, through the Book of Genesis, tells us about the beginning. Do you have specific questions about what is recorded?

Was there something wrong with my last question?

Ok, Genesis: My friend Bob thinks that Gen is a good myth to help pre-scientific people understand the beginning of creation. But then, I have my own ideas. And though it is not necessary, I thought it might be good to hear a third or fourth idea.

 

[DingDing]

Was there something wrong with my last question?

Ok, Genesis: My friend Bob thinks that Gen is a good myth to help pre-scientific people understand the beginning of creation. But then, I have my own ideas. And though it is not necessary, I thought it might be good to hear a third or fourth idea.

Please explain "pre-scientific"? Are you saying that Genesis is not believable or plausible? And after explaining "pre-scientific", what are your own ideas?