Why do some believers of Christ feel the bible is withou error?

[Job8]

That's not my understanding of inerrancy. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, gave this definition: 'The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact' (Grudem 1994:90).

A better definition is given by Stewart Custer in Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? Inerrancy is that characteristic of Scripture which renders it without mistake AND THEREFORE INFALLIBLE, not just in religious matters, but also in matters of historic and scientific fact.

They way to coneptualize this is as below:
INSPIRED -----> INERRANT----->INFALLIBLE

The fact of the matter is that a large number of so-called Evangelicals have rejected inerrancy, therefore infallibility. For proof study The Battle for the Bible and The Bible in the Balance, both written by evangelical writer Harold Lindsell many years ago.

 

[OzSpen]

A better definition is given by Stewart Custer in Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? Inerrancy is that characteristic of Scripture which renders it without mistake AND THEREFORE INFALLIBLE, not just in religious matters, but also in matters of historic and scientific fact.

They way to coneptualize this is as below:
INSPIRED -----> INERRANT----->INFALLIBLE

The fact of the matter is that a large number of so-called Evangelicals have rejected inerrancy, therefore infallibility. For proof study The Battle for the Bible and The Bible in the Balance, both written by evangelical writer Harold Lindsell many years ago.

According to dictionary definitions, inerrancy means infallibility:

• inerrancy = 'lack of error; infallibility' (dictionary.com); 'exemption from error : infallibility' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

• infallibility = 'not capable of being wrong or making mistakes : not fallible' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Harold Lindsell, one of my previous professors, raised the issue that was happening with the downgrade of inerrancy, particularly in Southern Baptist circles, in his 1976 book. The Battle for the Bible. Perhaps the most helpful exposition I have read is by Norman L Geisler (ed) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

My own understanding in affirming inerrancy is that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms in the original manuscripts (autographa). It naturally flows from an understanding of the Greek theopneustos (God-breathed), 2 Tim 3:16 (ESV), and the perfection of God. How is it possible for a God-breathed book to include error when he is Perfect?

The only Bible books that are NOT God-breathed are the translations. They are imperfect because of the transcribing process.

People commonly say to me: But we don’t have the originals so it is pointless to talk about the inerrancy of documents we do not have. Do you think so? I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

“Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it” (Harris 1969:88-89).

Works consulted
Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

In my opinion the Bible is probably MORE valid if its perceived as inspired but not inerrant simply because focusing on the central message of the text seems to be more compelling than fighting over how old the Earth is and if that is an essential belief.

How can we focus on your emphasis, 'the central message of the text', if the text cannot be understood as being reliable?

'Fighting over how old the earth is' relates to interpretation (hermeneutics) and not to the quality of the original documents.

Don't you also have another worldview from which you are trying to judge the Bible. Which Scriptures have you used to teach and/or reject the infallibility of Scripture?

 

[Albion]

That's not my understanding of inerrancy. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, gave this definition: 'The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact' (Grudem 1994:90).

Basically, this is the idea.

A better definition is given by Stewart Custer in Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? Inerrancy is that characteristic of Scripture which renders it without mistake AND THEREFORE INFALLIBLE, not just in religious matters, but also in matters of historic and scientific fact.

This is not.

The fact of the matter is that a large number of so-called Evangelicals have rejected inerrancy, therefore infallibility.

This is true--and unfortunate--but it doesn't say anything about the reliability of Scripture unless it would be "This is what you get when you depart from thinking that the Bible is reliable and sufficient."

 

[Zoness]

How can we focus on your emphasis, 'the central message of the text', if the text cannot be understood as being reliable?

'Fighting over how old the earth is' relates to interpretation (hermeneutics) and not to the quality of the original documents.

Don't you also have another worldview from which you are trying to judge the Bible. Which Scriptures have you used to teach and/or reject the infallibility of Scripture?

There's some pretty basic stuff like the Nicene Creed that seems to work well for developing a central message. It also sort of depends on if we assume that being less than inspired means it is less reliable. That's possibly the case. Who knows, I certainly don't.

The last question seems a bit circular but I'll attempt to answer; I use the scientific knowledge and experience provided to me over the course of my life. I've been in a variety of churches who require an infallible, literal acceptance of the Bible and then others that are in more of an inspired, less literal camp. The less literal camp appeared to make more sense if one is evaluating the Bible as a description of everything in the world. The more literal interpretation loses me on it's history and scientific aspects.

 

[Zstar]

I find these posts in this topic interesting, important, and informative - not intending to derail it or ignore or mock anything. One’s base foundation must be made of solid material or it begins to shift some – needing some foundational stones – because I believe the Golden Rule taught by Jesus is a type of Pricipa Theology or type of Universal doctrine that one Religion could be even built on. Been thinking a lot on this lately,

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-norm-and-the-disciples-got-it-wrong.7863370/

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-language-does-god-speak.7892608/

trying to figure it all out too like the language and content of various Scriptures such as the Bible. To me it’s not easy to figure out … if one would insist on such a thing as Scripts as Divine to research the ‘Bible Codes’ – myself the Golden Rule teaching – the collection of what St. Matthew says Jesus taught is my Christianity - Jesus set me free from the need to just rely on a Religion or written Word – long story btw - as above so below - I’m an Astrologer but not here to promote Occult.

Where does one draw the line on this - great question and something anyone with a Holy Scripture will have to process – or ignore. A Mantra or Golden Rule is the Key of ones Faith to look for I believe. I didn’t know about the claim of St. Mark being used as a templet – if so I think this is the way followers of Jesus preserved what He taught the best way they could. They did a good job to the credit of Early Christians to me.

My two cents on the matter is the same as Jesus to me … clear people’s mind from the Religious indoctrination oppressing the peoples, often unknowingly thinking it right because it’ ‘Written’ in Scriptures here or there or in this or that book. Speaking from experience, long story short but the wording for Jesus saying I tell you this day --- or this day you will be with me --- in Paradise --- when I was a learning about Catholicism. Taught me when you hinge so much on wording punctuation of a sentence for a doctrine like Purgatory, which after all is an oral statement that’s been written the inerrant Scripture doctrine makes me wonder too.

 

[OzSpen]

There's some pretty basic stuff like the Nicene Creed that seems to work well for developing a central message. It also sort of depends on if we assume that being less than inspired means it is less reliable. That's possibly the case. Who knows, I certainly don't.

The last question seems a bit circular but I'll attempt to answer; I use the scientific knowledge and experience provided to me over the course of my life. I've been in a variety of churches who require an infallible, literal acceptance of the Bible and then others that are in more of an inspired, less literal camp. The less literal camp appeared to make more sense if one is evaluating the Bible as a description of everything in the world. The more literal interpretation loses me on it's history and scientific aspects.

Do you want me to read your post with a literal understanding?

 

[Job8]

I believe the Golden Rule taught by Jesus is a type of Pricipa Theology or type of Universal doctrine that one Religion could be even built on. Been thinking a lot on this lately,...

While the Golden Rule is undoubtedly found in all religions, it will not make one as perfect as God. And without God's perfection (righteousness) clothing us, we cannot enter Heaven. That is why Eastern Religions have a cycle of births and rebirths. The Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the Cross is the only way for any man to enter Heaven. That is why although Jesus taught the Golden Rule, He made the New Birth the first priority (John 3:1-36; John 1:12,13).

When a sinner believes on the the Lord Jesus Christ and receives Him as Lord and Saviour, God justifies him by His grace, applies the blood of Christ to his soul for the forgiveness of sins, and places upon him the "robe" of Christ's righteousness. There is no religion on earth that has such a Saviour or such a salvation.

All of this ties in with an inspired, inerrant, and infallible Bible. If the Bible has even a single error, it cannot rightly claim to be the Word of God, which reveals God's salvation through Christ. Indeed, the "seed" of the New Birth is the Word of God (1 Pet 1:23-25).

 

[OzSpen]

While the Golden Rule is undoubtedly found in all religions, it will not make one as perfect as God. And without God's perfection (righteousness) clothing us, we cannot enter Heaven. That is why Eastern Religions have a cycle of births and rebirths. The Lord Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the Cross is the only way for any man to enter Heaven. That is why although Jesus taught the Golden Rule, He made the New Birth the first priority (John 3:1-36; John 1:12,13).

When a sinner believes on the the Lord Jesus Christ and receives Him as Lord and Saviour, God justifies him by His grace, applies the blood of Christ to his soul for the forgiveness of sins, and places upon him the "robe" of Christ's righteousness. There is no religion on earth that has such a Saviour or such a salvation.

All of this ties in with an inspired, inerrant, and infallible Bible. If the Bible has even a single error, it cannot rightly claim to be the Word of God, which reveals God's salvation through Christ. Indeed, the "seed" of the New Birth is the Word of God (1 Pet 1:23-25).

Are you accepting this as forensic justification? See 'The doctrine of justification'.

 

[Gdemoss]

I believe them to be perfect in every way.

That said, I don't believe it matters. Why? Subjection to opinion of the reader causes various errant interpretation of even that which is perfect.

Inerrancy of the scriptures then simply becomes a tool to divide rather than edify.

I NEVER discuss inerrancy when ministering to someone in need.

 

[OzSpen]

I believe them to be perfect in every way.

That said, I don't believe it matters. Why? Subjection to opinion of the reader causes various errant interpretation of even that which is perfect.

Inerrancy of the scriptures then simply becomes a tool to divide rather than edify.

I NEVER discuss inerrancy when ministering to someone in need.

Neither do I discuss inerrancy when ministering to a needy person. That's not the environment for such theological discussion.

However, I do deal with inerrancy of the original documents when teaching or preaching on a core Christian doctrine, the authority or otherwise of Scripture.

I'm not of the view that inerrancy does not matter. I'm interested in what the Scriptures teach. That's where I begin and finish, remembering that there are established principles for interpreting any document, whether that be Scripture or the local newspaper.

Oz

 

[paulm50]

Since spending a few years in researching the origins of the bible and trying to make sense of the intent of the writers of the bible I have discovered to much evidence that the bible is far from perfect. Why do people believe it is perfect?

The same reason you believe the book of mormon is perfect. And a lot of other people think their religion is the right one. Creating a religion is easy.

 

[drstevej]

Since spending a few years in researching the origins of the bible and trying to make sense of the intent of the writers of the bible I have discovered to much evidence that the bible is far from perfect. Why do people believe it is perfect?

Do you know Greek and Hebrew? It is the original manuscripts which are without error., God-breathed - God does not have halitosis.

Joseph Smith, on the other hand, changed the Bible to suit his fancy with ZERO manuscript support (e.g. Romans 8:30).

Your research needs to get beyond fairmormon. Learn the languages, I did.

 

[Rygaku]

People who read the bible and feel like it is without error is clearly cherry picking it.
The bible is a self contradictory book, there is a picture floating around how much
contradictions there is. In fact there is mentioned picture

 

[sahjimira]

People who read the bible and feel like it is without error is clearly cherry picking it.
The bible is a self contradictory book enough there is a picture floating around how much
contradictions there is. In fact there is mentioned picture

The bible is spiditu

 

[Founder]

Since spending a few years in researching the origins of the bible and trying to make sense of the intent of the writers of the bible I have discovered to much evidence that the bible is far from perfect. Why do people believe it is perfect?

It is useful, valuable and helpful to believe the Bible is inerrant. But that doesn't mean all translations are perfect, and certainly not all preaching is perfect, but if one concludes it has error then it degrades the value of the book to you. There is nothing whatever of any use in the idea of imperfection in the Bible, whereas the idea of perfection is very useful in all kinds of ways. I would say your imperfection is the problem, not the Bible's lack of perfection. Your very asking this sort of question, as to why so many people believe the Bible is perfect, says much more about you, than it says about the Bible. Google FounderChurch

 

[Zoness]

Do you want me to read your post with a literal understanding?

It wouldn't hurt. You don't seem interested in discussion, however so I shall move on.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you know Greek and Hebrew? It is the original manuscripts which are without error., God-breathed - God does not have halitosis.

Joseph Smith, on the other hand, changed the Bible to suit his fancy with ZERO manuscript support (e.g. Romans 8:30).

Your research needs to get beyond fairmormon. Learn the languages, I did.

We don't have the originals, only many copies of copies of copies.

And, the vast majority of scholars agree, there are errors in the copies.

 

[OzSpen]

People who read the bible and feel like it is without error is clearly cherry picking it.
The bible is a self contradictory book, there is a picture floating around how much
contradictions there is. In fact there is mentioned picture

And you provide not one piece of 'self contradictory' evidence that we could discuss or debate. Assertions do not work with me.

'Feel like' is existential nothingness that takes us nowhere in discussions.

Could you also have a 'cherry picking' problem as well?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It wouldn't hurt. You don't seem interested in discussion, however so I shall move on.

That's a false accusation. I'm very interested in discussion, but when you put down a church that believes in literal interpretation and then want me to read your post with a literal understanding, I find that to be a contradictory perspective.