Does the Bible claim to be inerrant?

[PrincetonGuy]

Does the Bible claim to be inerrant? What does the Bible say about itself?

 

[daveleau]

Not directly. But, it does call itself the Word of God, and is said to be God breathed. This second aspect is said of "the Scriptures." At the time of writing, there is an issue with what was considered Scripture. Peter calls Paul's writings Scripture, and Paul spoke directly in Timothy about the Old Testament Scriptures, as the Gospels, Acts, Hebrews, James, and Revelation had not bee written yet.

Here is a defense of the inerrancy of scripture, including definitions of what is meant by inerrant. Inerrancy and inspiration go hand in hand, so this paper discusses both. I hope my writing in it is of some help.
http://www.leaumont.com/theology/inerrancy.pdf


One note I must say is that a low view of Scripture leads to unguided theology. Most wacky theologies that came out of the late 1800's through the late 1970's are due to a low view of Scripture. Thankfully, scholars are returning to sane theology in their writings today, with the exception of a few heresies that remain that directly contradict Scripture. But, mainstream Christianity is returning. Beware of holding a low view of Scripture, as it leads to pluralism regarding salvation, the stripping of Jesus' Deity, and potentially the loss of the soul due to misplaced faith.

In Him,
Dave

 

[Touma]

Well, even most Christian scholars agree that in the new testament alone, there have been add ons to the gospels and such. For example, I am reading Lee Strobel's "The case for a Real Jesus" and in one of his chapters, it talks about how the story of the prostitute who was about to be stoned, was added later. Now, because of that, there is an issued with inerrancy. However, we know that the most important stuff, such as how to receive salvation, and who Christ was, is all true, and is backed by history. One last thing you should consider is that the bible isn't necessarily the Word, but rather the Holy Spirit of God, which dwells in our lives as believers.

 

[daveleau]

Yes, the pericope adultera (John 7:53-8:11) is an issue that needs to be discerned. Nazaroo has a few good threads defending this passage in the Exposition and Bible Study forum here. I am unsure, as there is evidence for both sides. The same could be said about the Gospel of Mark's closing, as manuscripts have a few different endings.

The Bible we have today has been tweaked by overzealous scribes, resulting in additions to make the Bible "more clear." Much of the conflict regarding the differences between the KJV and NIV have surrounded what NIV scholars have described as removing additions from the scribes. The inerrant Scriptures are found in the autographs (original documents). Several scholars have stated the changes have not affected any major theology.

No translation can be without error, especially when it comes to translating from Koine Greek to English. But, through study, prayer, and guidance from the Spirit, we should treat the Bible as inerrant and attempt to reclaim the perfection found in the autographs.

One thing I should add that is not stated in my posts is that there are qualifications to the term inerrant that should be understood.

Absolute inerrancy- every word is perfect. This is the state that describes the autographs.

Fully inerrant- every thought or theology in Scripture is perfectly described, even though every word is not perfect. This is what I believe the state of most current English Bibles is.

Limited inerrant- salvific passages are perfect theologically. This is the position you have described.

Many modern scholars support absolute and full inerrancy, or absolute and limited inerrancy. It depends on the viewpoint of the author.

In Christ,
Dave

 

[themuzicman]

2 Pet 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 [So] we have the prophetic word [made] more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is [a matter] of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.​

Here, Peter makes an exclusive claim for those who saw Christ glorified and for the OT writers regarding their writings' authority and inerrancy.

Muz

 

[TheCheat1]

Does the Bible claim to be inerrant? What does the Bible say about itself?

"All Scripture is God breathed..." If God is perfect, anything He makes is perfect. It's like red marker-- it only makes red.

 

[HuntingMan]

Does the Bible claim to be inerrant? What does the Bible say about itself?

Is the Spirit of God who inspired it inerrant ?

 

[TheCheat1]

Is the Spirit of God who inspired it inerrant ?

 

[elsbeth]

I don't believe that is claims inerrancy OR infallibility. I know the quotes most used, and they just don't say that. In my opinion, the "God-breathed" quote means that God breathed life into the Bible, the same way He breathed life into people. I believe the Bible books to be written by people who knew God, about their experiences with God. Inspired, certainly, but not anymore inerrant/infallible than writings by other Christians over the centuries.

 

[Aibrean]

To say the Word isn't inerrant is to say God made a mistake IMO. You really think he would send Jesus only to have people following something that wasn't 100% correct?

Galatians 1:11-12
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

 

[CShephard53]

I don't believe that is claims inerrancy OR infallibility. I know the quotes most used, and they just don't say that. In my opinion, the "God-breathed" quote means that God breathed life into the Bible, the same way He breathed life into people. I believe the Bible books to be written by people who knew God, about their experiences with God. Inspired, certainly, but not anymore inerrant/infallible than writings by other Christians over the centuries.

Then why on earth do you put your faith in it, and how do you determine what is or is not error?

 

[elsbeth]

Then why on earth do you put your faith in it, and how do you determine what is or is not error?

My faith is NOT in the Bible. My faith is in God. I believe the Bible was written by people who knew God, and describes their experiences with God. I take much of the Bible as good advice, excellent teaching, encouragment, and parts of it I rather doubt was literal history and parts of it I frankly doubt is accurate.

 

[CShephard53]

My faith is NOT in the Bible. My faith is in God. I believe the Bible was written by people who knew God, and describes their experiences with God. I take much of the Bible as good advice, excellent teaching, encouragment, and parts of it I rather doubt was literal history and parts of it I frankly doubt is accurate.

You just said you put faith in it, you say you 'take much of the Bible as good advice, excellent teaching'. That means you actively rely on it to provide you with the truth. Then you say you doubt some of its accuracy? What do you base those assumptions and doubts on?

 

[elsbeth]

I take the Bible the same way I do writings from other Christians, varying in accuracy or reliability, according to the author. I believe that Jesus gave us the clearest picture of God, and I question parts of the Bible tha don't seem to line up with that. I also have many years experience in a realtionship with God, and while I certaily don't know everthing about Him, I know a lot.

 

[CShephard53]

I take the Bible the same way I do writings from other Christians, varying in accuracy or reliability, according to the author. I believe that Jesus gave us the clearest picture of God, and I question parts of the Bible tha don't seem to line up with that. I also have many years experience in a realtionship with God, and while I certaily don't know everthing about Him, I know a lot.

That is not enough to make an authoritative decision on which parts are accurate or inaccurate, or that parts are inaccurate.

Additionally, Jesus is written about in the Bible. How do you know those accounts aren't fiction or fact? How do you draw the line? What basis do you have for the claims that you have made? If your reply is again going to be 'my relationship with Jesus', you might as well try to drain the ocean. Your claims have no merit unless they have proper logical backing to them.

 

[elsbeth]

That is not enough to make an authoritative decision on which parts are accurate or inaccurate, or that parts are inaccurate.

Additionally, Jesus is written about in the Bible. How do you know those accounts aren't fiction or fact? How do you draw the line? What basis do you have for the claims that you have made? If your reply is again going to be 'my relationship with Jesus', you might as well try to drain the ocean. Your claims have no merit unless they have proper logical backing to them.

That is all your opinion, which you have a perfect right to, just as I have a right to my opinions about the Bible.
The question posed in this thread was "Doss the Bible claim to be inerrant?" I've never seen any quotes from it that actually claim inerrancy. The quotes actually say one thing, but people say "oh, but it really means something else".

 

[CShephard53]

That is all your opinion, which you have a perfect right to, just as I have a right to my opinions about the Bible.
The question posed in this thread was "Doss the Bible claim to be inerrant?" I've never seen any quotes from it that actually claim inerrancy. The quotes actually say one thing, but people say "oh, but it really means something else".

And that's another baseless claim. This doesn't have much to do with opinions, miss, it has everything to do with truth.

 

[CShephard53]

Does the Bible claim to be inerrant? What does the Bible say about itself?

This really doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not it is inerrant.

 

[elsbeth]

And that's another baseless claim. This doesn't have much to do with opinions, miss, it has everything to do with truth.

MISS? You're 20 and I'm 57. I've been Christian nearly twice as long as you've been alive. I know that doesn't guarantee wisdom, but God HAS managed to get some things through to me over the years.

 

[CShephard53]

MISS? You're 20 and I'm 57. I've been Christian nearly twice as long as you've been alive. I know that doesn't guarantee wisdom, but God HAS managed to get some things through to me over the years.

Well, you admitted yourself it was just an opinion. I was only trying to be polite by calling you miss, by the way, unless you'd like to continue to throw that in my face. But try not to continue pulling the ageism crap with me, you know as well as I do that just because I'm about a third of your age doesn't mean I don't have a point or that I can't be wise, I daresay wiser than you, it only means it's unlikely. I know a 52 year old lady who has the emotional maturity of a 10 year old, don't use age to say anything here.