Biblical inerrancy vs infallibility

[cloudyday2]

Here is a link on Biblical inerrancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Inerrancy means that everything in the original manuscript must be correct. Infallibility means that everything in the original manuscript is spiritually helpful but it isn't necessarily correct.

Instead of classifying the Bible as a unit, I think believers should classify books of the Bible or even sections of those books. For example, many Christians don't believe that the Torah is historically accurate, but those same Christians might believe that the Gospels are historically accurate (roughly).

Is there such a thing as "New Testament inerrancy"?

 

[dcalling]

Here is a link on Biblical inerrancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Inerrancy means that everything in the original manuscript must be correct. Infallibility means that everything in the original manuscript is spiritually helpful but it isn't necessarily correct.

Instead of classifying the Bible as a unit, I think believers should classify books of the Bible or even sections of those books. For example, many Christians don't believe that the Torah is historically accurate, but those same Christians might believe that the Gospels are historically accurate (roughly).

Is there such a thing as "New Testament inerrancy"?

I believe the Bible is correct in its meaning, i.e. the message that God is trying to convey to us. There can be errors in translation, can be words that have meanings lost, can be numbers that were not wrote down correctly, but God keeps its message unchanged.

 

[cloudyday2]

I believe the Bible is correct in its meaning, i.e. the message that God is trying to convey to us. There can be errors in translation, can be words that have meanings lost, can be numbers that were not wrote down correctly, but God keeps its message unchanged.

What do you think of the stories in Genesis and Exodus?

 

[chilehed]

I disagree with your premises. As the article says, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." This definition is.significantly different than the one you state.

And infallibility is not an attribute of Sacred Scripture, it is a charism given by God to the successor of St. Peter when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. Refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

 

[cloudyday2]

I disagree with your premises. As the article says, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." This definition is.significantly different than the one you state.

And infallibility is not an attribute of Sacred Scripture, it is a charism given by God to the successor of St. Peter when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. Refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

Well you need to take that up with Wikipedia - not me I was just using the definition in Wikipedia, and by that definition the Catholic church claims infallibility - not inerrancy.

So what about my question though? Do you think sections of the Bible should be classified as either inerrant or infallible instead of trying to classify the entire collection?

 

[tulipbee]

Here is a link on Biblical inerrancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Inerrancy means that everything in the original manuscript must be correct. Infallibility means that everything in the original manuscript is spiritually helpful but it isn't necessarily correct.

Instead of classifying the Bible as a unit, I think believers should classify books of the Bible or even sections of those books. For example, many Christians don't believe that the Torah is historically accurate, but those same Christians might believe that the Gospels are historically accurate (roughly).

Is there such a thing as "New Testament inerrancy"?

Heres the thing. Most, here, think the opposite of what the spiritual things of God really is. There isn't a space God is not. There isnt one molecule running free apart from God. When the writers of the Bible wrote, they wrote exaclty what God told them to write. Every letter was from God. Even though each writer sounded different and contradicted each other, God told them what to write, letter by letter. Like multiple different denominations, God was with them and lead the churches even though they taught differently from each other. This makes God fill more spaces than we can grasp. Whats behind all this? Theres perfection and evidence behind every single greek, hebrew letter written in the 66 books. The rest of the 73 books used by catholics isn't inspired by God but written by men who wanted to sound good but false copycats. How do we know the 66 book is purely written by God? All we have to do is look behind the pages and between the lines to find pure scientific edvidence that the atheist can't even refute and lose each time. You may learn more in Dr Ivan Panin's work or visit http://www.theomatics.com there you won't deny the 66 book bible is pure perfection to its core.

 

[tulipbee]

I disagree with your premises. As the article says, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." This definition is.significantly different than the one you state.

And infallibility is not an attribute of Sacred Scripture, it is a charism given by God to the successor of St. Peter when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. Refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 891.

The rest of the 73 books apart of the 66 purely inspired books are full of errors cause its written by men without the help of God. They wrote it alone. Thats why the Catholics teach false doctrines saying that all their books in thier libraries are from God and on top of that, every pope is authorized to every tradition to be from God like the pope us god themselves. I would skip over Catholic claims and return to the narrow path.

 

[cloudyday2]

Thanks, everybody, for the replies.

To ask the question another way, on one hand we have people that believe the entire Bible is literally true from cover to cover, on the other hand we have people who say parts aren't literally true but they are good teachings. This gives each believer a lot of latitude. My priest taught us that the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels were myths, allegories, etc. Where do we draw the line?

Rather than leave it to each believer to decide for himself/herself what is literally true and what isn't, have any of the denominations attempted to create a table showing what parts of the Bible are literally true and what parts aren't?

 

[Troy Rambo]

As far as errors in the Bible, I havent come across a misspelled word or bad grammar in my whole life. But I have in just about every other book I ever read. If you believe that God works in our lives, then couldnt He fix an error in His book? Im certain that the Bible says exactly what God wants it to say.

Now as far as how to determine what is literally true and what isnt. Now days I believe its all true, but most of the stories are meant for you to learn a moral truth. For instance, Cain murdered Abel in Genesis. Maybe Cain didnt really kill Abel but he intended to but God stopped him before he carried it out.

"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer." 1 John 3:15

Dont take my word for it, Im just speculating here. But Im pretty sure that what God wants us to get out of the Bible the most is learning moral truths.

 

[cloudyday2]

As far as errors in the Bible, I havent come across a misspelled word or bad grammar in my whole life. But I have in just about every other book I ever read. If you believe that God works in our lives, then couldnt He fix an error in His book? Im certain that the Bible says exactly what God wants it to say.

Now as far as how to determine what is literally true and what isnt. Now days I believe its all true, but most of the stories are meant for you to learn a moral truth. For instance, Cain murdered Abel in Genesis. Maybe Cain didnt really kill Abel but he intended to but God stopped him before he carried it out.

"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer." 1 John 3:15

Dont take my word for it, Im just speculating here. But Im pretty sure that what God wants us to get out of the Bible the most is learning moral truths.

What if I decide that the character of Jesus in the bible is not historical? Maybe the story of Jesus's birth, life, and crucifixion is nothing but a story to illustrate various theological ideas? Or maybe it all happened in a spiritual world as opposed to natural reality? (Of course most historians believe that a guy named Jesus really did exist and was crucified, but there are some fringe people who believe it was all a myth.)

It seems like denominations need to have some standards about what in the Bible is historically accurate and what is allegory and what is uncertain.

 

[Troy Rambo]

This is a really tricky subject. All I can do is answer as honestly as I can. I wasnt there to witness the events in the Bible and Im certainly not like God who knows all. Im still working on releasing my doubts. If you go to church, you will notice that there are Christians who are always trying to be holy as God is holy. You learn to do this by learning morality from the Bible.

There are other sources of proof to look at besides the Bible itself that testify to the truth. Like, why is there a church in every neighborhood and each one full of believers?

I believe that all the events in the Bible happened but it is hard for me to fathom at times. Im still learning to let go of the world as I used to see it and trying hard to view a more "supernatural" world with God who is very much alive in it.

"Let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, disbelief. Free your mind." Morpheus The Matrix

"This is your last chance. Take the blue pill and wake up and believe whatever you want to believe. Take the red pill and Ill show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." Morpheus The Matrix

 

[oi_antz]

What if I decide that the character of Jesus in the bible is not historical? Maybe the story of Jesus's birth, life, and crucifixion is nothing but a story to illustrate various theological ideas? Or maybe it all happened in a spiritual world as opposed to natural reality? (Of course most historians believe that a guy named Jesus really did exist and was crucified, but there are some fringe people who believe it was all a myth.)

It seems like denominations need to have some standards about what in the Bible is historically accurate and what is allegory and what is uncertain.

How could it be true? How could you or I or anyone else who is honest about it, find truth in it? Jesus said "I came to the world to testify to the truth. Those on the side of truth recognise that what I say is true". I do not perceive that the authors of the scriptures, especially those writing the New Testament, could have really lied knowingly about God. It just isn't consistent with the nature of the faith one must have, to have said such things.

 

[cloudyday2]

How could it be true? How could you or I or anyone else who is honest about it, find truth in it? Jesus said "I came to the world to testify to the truth. Those on the side of truth recognise that what I say is true". I do not perceive that the authors of the scriptures, especially those writing the New Testament, could have really lied knowingly about God. It just isn't consistent with the nature of the faith one must have, to have said such things.

You're probably aware of the many gospels that didn't make it into the NT canon such as the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas...?

 

[golgotha61]

You're probably aware of the many gospels that didn't make it into the NT canon such as the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas...?

In the first place, the criteria for determining whether or not ancient documents are real involves, among other things, their date of writing, the geographic connection, and the accuracy of the document. Consider the Gospel of Peter a failure in the third criteria since the author new nothing “burial traditions, copse impurity issues, and other matters from Jesus’ time” (Strobel loc 519). This in itself would be determinate in the rejection of this Gospel as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are both Gnostic and not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Dr. Craig A. Evans maintains that the Gospel of Thomas cannot be canonical since it is not connected to the apostles. Remember Christ’s words in John 14:26; 16:13-14. This Gospel also contains material from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and sometimes Paul and over half of the “New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas” which means that the document is late in its writing (loc 587). Evans believes that it cannot be written before 150 AD. The other examples that you give fair as poorly as Thomas does.



Works Cited

Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids; Zondervan. 2007. Kindle file.

 

[dcalling]

What do you think of the stories in Genesis and Exodus?

I think they are true. My mind set has changed from "false by default" to "true by default" on the Torah.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think they are true. My mind set has changed from "false by default" to "true by default" on the Torah.

What do you think about God hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could punish Egypt with plagues - culminating in the death of every first born human or animal in Egypt? If that story was actual history then God is awful.

 

[cloudyday2]

In the first place, the criteria for determining whether or not ancient documents are real involves, among other things, their date of writing, the geographic connection, and the accuracy of the document. Consider the Gospel of Peter a failure in the third criteria since the author new nothing “burial traditions, copse impurity issues, and other matters from Jesus’ time” (Strobel loc 519). This in itself would be determinate in the rejection of this Gospel as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are both Gnostic and not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Dr. Craig A. Evans maintains that the Gospel of Thomas cannot be canonical since it is not connected to the apostles. Remember Christ’s words in John 14:26; 16:13-14. This Gospel also contains material from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and sometimes Paul and over half of the “New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas” which means that the document is late in its writing (loc 587). Evans believes that it cannot be written before 150 AD. The other examples that you give fair as poorly as Thomas does.



Works Cited

Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids; Zondervan. 2007. Kindle file.

I was not arguing that Gospel of Peter, etc. were more credible than the canonical gospels. I was giving examples of untruthful gospels, because @oi_antz seemed to be saying that he could not imagine people writing untruthful gospels.

 

[dcalling]

What do you think about God hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he could punish Egypt with plagues - culminating in the death of every first born human or animal in Egypt? If that story was actual history then God is awful.

I believe they are true. God can pretty much do what God wants. If you look through the entire Bible, the parts that seems to be harsh is a tiny part. All the other parts, God is asking us to not kill, not steal, not covet, to love others, and to love even our enemies.

And you will notice that at any moment, people die, some in horrific conditions, and many of them are good people, good Christians, even children, to illness, to murder and to other disasters. The life on earth is nothing compare to what to come (have you read about NDEs?).

 

[oi_antz]

You're probably aware of the many gospels that didn't make it into the NT canon such as the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas...?

I am. Are you confused about why they seem untrustworthy?

 

[dcalling]

I am. Are you confused about why they seem untrustworthy?

Lol, we read too many stuff over the ages