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

[bhsmte]

Jane usually does.

 

[americanvet]

I also can go to my 2,500 volumes and choose books that do not affirm inerrancy. That proves nothing. Our issues are: (1) What's the biblical evidence? (2) Can the God of perfection make available a document for everyday consumption that is not perfect?

So are you suggesting that Harold Lindsell, John W Montgomery, Wayne Grudem and others who accumulate evidence in support of inerrancy, are presumptive and don't know what they are talking about?

Seems as though you and I are coming from two different perspectives in analysing the biblical evidence for the authority of Scripture.

I provide evidence for 'The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals'.

Oz

I never said the Bible wasn't perfect. Yes I am not only suggesting they are presumptive I openly saying they are. The perspective I am coming from is the one and only God gave man a book (The Bible) to teach us about Him, to show us what He requires and desires of His creation, and to give hope to the world. I do not think God gave us a history book because knowing who married who and conquered what other kingdom does nothing for my eternal soul. The spiritual lesson associated with these stories however do. I also happily admit my logic may at times us part of a logical fallacy. I am a imperfect human who is prone to fallacy. I can also go one further that while attaining my theological degree I was instructed on these fallacies and the "need for biblical inerrancy" that I disagreed with my professors with this need. I believe the God who made an animal speak, parted waters, and raised the dead can perfectly and completely teach me through a book that is not inerrant but can also teach me through the earthly teaches (whom are also no inerrant). That God can and does use His creation (all of creation) that is not perfect to illustrate His perfection and glory. That my faith is not threatened by new information or discovery. That I strive to have the same faith as that Biblical character who said "I believe help my unbelief" because I am not perfect and I rely on a perfect God. That I feel shame for continuing this fruitless conversation about God's Holy Book (The Bible) is or isn't inerrant because God is and fueling this discussion takes away from Him. We should focus on the love of God, the grace of God, the salvation Christ has to offer, and the life He offers us. The fact that different believers disagree about the inerracy of the Book does not change the message of the Book (again to be clear The Bible). That instead of dismissing one another because we hold slightly different beliefs about the words of The Bible but completely agree of the saving, loving, and gracious power of the God whom is one and true God. Wouldn't the world and the church be better served if we didn't focus on our differences as brothers and sisters in Christ but focused again on I don't know Christ. The world looks at our petty arguments and laughs at us. Let us unite in Christ and boldly tell the world we are children of Christ! We can disagree with one another and still love one another! That Christ is a God of unity and not division. That we as Christ family on earth desire to unite the world worshiping the One True God, The Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) in the love Christ proclaimed. Please I implore the readers of this post not to take my word for it. But to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then decide which is more profitable for the Kingdom of God. Is it our personal understanding of the nature of the Bible or is it the universal understanding of the nature of God.

 

[OzSpen]

I never said the Bible wasn't perfect. Yes I am not only suggesting they are presumptive I openly saying they are. The perspective I am coming from is the one and only God gave man a book (The Bible) to teach us about Him, to show us what He requires and desires of His creation, and to give hope to the world. I do not think God gave us a history book because knowing who married who and conquered what other kingdom does nothing for my eternal soul. The spiritual lesson associated with these stories however do. I also happily admit my logic may at times us part of a logical fallacy. I am a imperfect human who is prone to fallacy. I can also go one further that while attaining my theological degree I was instructed on these fallacies and the "need for biblical inerrancy" that I disagreed with my professors with this need. I believe the God who made an animal speak, parted waters, and raised the dead can perfectly and completely teach me through a book that is not inerrant but can also teach me through the earthly teaches (whom are also no inerrant). That God can and does use His creation (all of creation) that is not perfect to illustrate His perfection and glory. That my faith is not threatened by new information or discovery. That I strive to have the same faith as that Biblical character who said "I believe help my unbelief" because I am not perfect and I rely on a perfect God. That I feel shame for continuing this fruitless conversation about God's Holy Book (The Bible) is or isn't inerrant because God is and fueling this discussion takes away from Him. We should focus on the love of God, the grace of God, the salvation Christ has to offer, and the life He offers us. The fact that different believers disagree about the inerracy of the Book does not change the message of the Book (again to be clear The Bible). That instead of dismissing one another because we hold slightly different beliefs about the words of The Bible but completely agree of the saving, loving, and gracious power of the God whom is one and true God. Wouldn't the world and the church be better served if we didn't focus on our differences as brothers and sisters in Christ but focused again on I don't know Christ. The world looks at our petty arguments and laughs at us. Let us unite in Christ and boldly tell the world we are children of Christ! We can disagree with one another and still love one another! That Christ is a God of unity and not division. That we as Christ family on earth desire to unite the world worshiping the One True God, The Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) in the love Christ proclaimed. Please I implore the readers of this post not to take my word for it. But to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and then decide which is more profitable for the Kingdom of God. Is it our personal understanding of the nature of the Bible or is it the universal understanding of the nature of God.

Would you please learn to write in discernible paragraphs so that your writing is made easier to follow.

Your language, 'I do not think God gave us a history book', amounts to nothing more than your personal opinion. It is not a researched understanding.

'I also happily admit my logic may at times us (sic) part of a logical fallacy'. That being the case, that leaves us without the equipment to have a logical conversation. Your use of a logical fallacy means you use fallacious reasoning.

'The world looks at our petty arguments and laughs at us'. With perspective, this is not 'the world' but a Christian forum. Discerning the nature of Scripture in the original documents is not a 'petty argument' but relates to the core Christian doctrine of bibliology.

'Is it our personal understanding of the nature of the Bible or is it the universal understanding of the nature of God'. My 'personal understanding' of the Bible is not worth a penny. What is important is the Bible's description of its own nature. That's what I've been trying to discuss.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, it does not.

The point was not that a majority believe X, therefore it must be true. The point was that most Christians and churches do not accept your perspective as correct, so it follows logically that it's not as likely of being correct as you want us to believe.

That aside, I think we all still need to agree on what we mean when saying that the Bible is inerrant. Is it inerrant in its religious message or it is inerrant in every last word? Quite a few churches would say the former; far fewer stand behind the latter. And, of course, there are those who do not claim inerrancy at all, as noted--which does not automatically mean they consider the contents to be damaged goods or unreliable.

You don't seem to realise that your statement, 'most Christians and churches', is also an application of the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy. This is what this fallacy means:

Description of Appeal to Common Practice [The Nizkor Project]

The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.​

So, you have responded with the Appeal to Common Practice Fallacy. Trying to deny that does not change the fact that you used it.

An example of a statement on inerrancy, representing many in the evangelical church, is The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), Section VI, which states:

“WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.​

WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole”.​

My understanding of inerrancy - and the one I support - is that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts in all that it affirms. Some of my understanding is in my articles online:

• The Bible’s support for inerrancy of the originals
• Apparent contradictions and inerrancy (my son's article)
• What is the nature of the Bible’s inspiration?

Oz

 

[Troy Rambo]

All I know is The Bible was written by man but inspired by God. I also know that Ive never come across a misspelled word or grammar errors that I know of. its been translated many times and I certainly prefer the NIV the most so far. Its doubtful but maybe it has some errors since it was written by man, but it certainly gets the job done.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, what exactly do you want me to refute and/or prove?

That the Bible is a heterogeneous anthology instead of a single text written (or dictated verbatim) by a single, divine author? A single glance at the table of contents suffices for that.
That the books of the Bible do not claim to represent God's words (except for passages that explicitly state: "Thus says the LORD")? Again, the text itself suffices.
Or maybe that the Pauline epistle in question does not make the claim that the whole anthology is inerrant? For that, you only need to do one thing: read the epistle in its historical context. For starters, the New Testament did not exist at that point. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Secondly, the letter addresses a specific question, as I pointed out before: should Christians read the Septuagint, or shouldn't they? Paul's answer: yes, read them, they're all inspired and good for instruction. It doesn't even claim inerrancy, let alone direct verbal inspiration.

Jane,

Would you have any difficulty with a Shakespeare anthology in determining that Shakespeare was the author. Simply because the Bible is - in your understanding - 'a heterogeneous anthology' should not deter you from determining the nature of inerrancy from WITHIN the contents of this 'anthology'. That's not such a difficult task. What's the barrier to wanting to determine the nature of the authority of Scripture in relation to inerrancy?

You state: 'That the books of the Bible do not claim to represent God's words (except for passages that explicitly state: "Thus says the LORD")? Again, the text itself suffices'. Do Shakespeare's works have written through them, 'thus says Shakespeare', to affirm that Shakespeare is the author? Is think not.

You state: 'Or maybe that the Pauline epistle in question does not make the claim that the whole anthology is inerrant? For that, you only need to do one thing: read the epistle in its historical context. For starters, the New Testament did not exist at that point. Zilch. Zip. Nada'. I presume you are referring to 2 Tim 3:16, 'All Scripture'. If you did your homework on this text, you would discover that this verse is referring primarily, but not exclusively, to the OT Scriptures. Here are a couple examples:

1. William Hendriksen: 'All scripture, in distinction from "(the) sacred writings" (for which see on verse 15) means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative. When Paul wrote these words, the direct reference was to a body of sacred literature which even then comprised more than the Old Testament (see 1 Tim 5:18).... Later, at the close of the first century A. D., "all scripture" had been completed. Though the history of recognition, review, and ratification of the canon was somewhat complicated, and virtually universal acceptance of all the sixty-six books did not occur immediately in every region where the church was represented - one of the reasons being that for a long time certain of the smaller books had not even reached every corner of the church' (Hendriksen & Kistemaker 1957:301).
2. Edwin Blum: 'These sacred writings are what we know as the Old Testament books and are so valuable because they have the ability to give the "wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus"' (Blum 1979:45)

There is teaching on inerrancy in this passage, based on the nature of God, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that.

Oz

Works consulted
Blum, E A 1979. The apostles' view of Scripture, in N L Geisler (ed), Inerrancy, 39-56. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Hendriksen, W & Kistemaker, S J 1955, 1957, 1984. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

 

[Albion]

You don't seem to realise that your statement, 'most Christians and churches', is also an application of the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy.

I explained to you why it is not, so there isn't a lot more that I can do.

Description of Appeal to Common Practice [The Nizkor Project]
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.​

...which, as I explained, is precisely why what I and the other poster said is NOT the Appeal to Common Practice. The conclusion is not the same, and that is what your whole point mistakenly hangs on.

 

[OzSpen]

I explained to you why it is not, so there isn't a lot more that I can do.

...which, as I explained, is precisely why what I and the other poster said is NOT the Appeal to Common Practice. The conclusion is not the same, and that is what your whole point mistakenly hangs on.

The conclusion IS the same. That's why this response is a red herring. Further logical discussion is prohibited when you continue with your use of logical fallacies.

Do you see what has happened here when you engage in the use of logical fallacies? It prevents us from having a reasonable discussion about the issues relating to inerrancy and whether the perfect God makes sure that his Word - the Scripture - is imperfect. The issues affecting the doctrine of inerrancy are thus avoided when we get diverted with the use of logical fallacies.

Oz

 

[smaneck]

Although, I would say to many that it doesn't necessarily mean that it is factual, just that it is true.

That's the way I think we need to look at all scripture, biblical or non-biblical.

 

[smaneck]

Some Christians base their faith on the Bible being the inerrant word of God.

I think if they would just recognize the Word is ultimately a Person and not a text there would be fewer problems.

 

[smaneck]

Since God is perfect, His written Word is perfect. It is also sufficient for every spiritual need (2 Tim 2:16,17).

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

?????

 

[smaneck]

Satan doe not attack the Koran, so people should ask themselves, Why?

I've seen lots of 'satans' attacking the Qur'an.

 

[smaneck]

That would require its own thread. There are some in existence and you can do a search.

For the purposes of this discussion, Scripture is GOD-BREATHED (Gk theopneustos) (2 Tim 3:16). In practical terms it means that every word in the 66 canonical books of the Bible's original manuscripts (Hebrew and Greek) is a word of God, and a word from God.

All 66 books? There weren't 66 books in the Bible when that verse was written!

 

[americanvet]

Would you please learn to write in discernible paragraphs so that your writing is made easier to follow.

Your language, 'I do not think God gave us a history book', amounts to nothing more than your personal opinion. It is not a researched understanding.

'I also happily admit my logic may at times us (sic) part of a logical fallacy'. That being the case, that leaves us without the equipment to have a logical conversation. Your use of a logical fallacy means you use fallacious reasoning.

'The world looks at our petty arguments and laughs at us'. With perspective, this is not 'the world' but a Christian forum. Discerning the nature of Scripture in the original documents is not a 'petty argument' but relates to the core Christian doctrine of bibliology.

'Is it our personal understanding of the nature of the Bible or is it the universal understanding of the nature of God'. My 'personal understanding' of the Bible is not worth a penny. What is important is the Bible's description of its own nature. That's what I've been trying to discuss.

Oz

To be clear because I admitted to using a logical fallacy and admitted to be flawed you cannot have a logical conversation with me? So if I as a imperfect being admits to being imperfect I can't have a logical conversation? If this is indeed your stance then you are correct that we cannot have a logical conversation.

Again you are being presumptive that my opinion is not a researched understanding. You are assuming I have not researched my belief which by the way is a false belief on your behalf.

We also agree on the importance of personal understanding. I have read the entire Bible multiple times and I have not seen one verse, chapter, or book which declares the Bible is inerrant in the manner Evangelicals mean. However, I do read where it is perfect for what is does proclaim to be which is THE book on spiritual life. Because it is my personal opinion (thus I believe it) I can proclaim Christ to the world. Whereas I do not proclaim salvation to people with spaghetti as the source of salvation because that is not what I believe. So yes personal opinion matters because teaching/preaching/practicing something you don't believe in well that's just insane.

Also it would have been much more polite to ask me to write in paragraphs and not ask me to learn to write in paragraphs. I assure you I do know how to write in paragraphs. However, I was in a rush to work when I was replying and decided it was more important to reply while the ideas were fresh in my mind.

There are seekers and members of other faiths which come here looking at the Christian faith. So I firmly stand by my statement about the world seeing us. These discussions are also played out in other formats other than this site. Nonbelievers find it odd that after all these hundreds of years we still argue about the one and only book of our faith. Which is why again we as Christians should focus on the parts we agree on and agree to disagree on the parts we don't.

Here is why: I hope regardless of what side of the discussion a Christian falls on they are more concerned about reaching the lost than about being correct on a theological issue. Not a theological issue huge such as is Jesus God. But something as trivial as do we view something the exact same. Because even though the two of use view the Bible differently we both believe it is God's message to the world. That through it we can learn about Christ and by Christ sacrifice and the power of the Holy Spirit that I (all of us) as sinners can be saved.

So in closing and hopefully my last (or almost) post in this topic I can agree to disagree. I can accept that we might view certain aspects of the Christian faith differently. I refuse to however attempt to degrade, belittle, or imply other Christians aren't informed because they disagree on a matter of faith which does not affect the message of the Bible nor undermine the awesomeness of God.

 

[smaneck]

Not by Muslims, as compared to attacks on the Bible by "Christians". And why would Satan attack his own invention, which promotes hatred against Christians and Jews?

I thought you said it was being attacked by Satan, not Christians. Interesting since it is largely Christians who attack the Qur'an. Follow your own logic. And the Qur'an does not promote hatred against Christians and Jews.

There is however, a significant difference between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Qur'an is seen as revealed by God to Muhammad through the arch-angel Gabriel. Whether one accepts its divine origin or not, it is generally accepted to be from a single source. The Bible, on the other hand, has numerous authors some of whom claimed to Prophets and some didn't. The Book of Isaiah, for instance is thought to have at least three different authors judging by writing styles. And even your 2 Timothy was written by someone in the 2nd century, not St. Paul.

 

[smaneck]

We also agree on the importance of personal understanding. I have read the entire Bible multiple times and I have not seen one verse, chapter, or book which declares the Bible is inerrant in the manner Evangelicals mean.

However, I do read where it is perfect for what is does proclaim to be which is THE book on spiritual life.

An interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, but probably closer to this author's intent than what was suggested earlier.

 

[smaneck]

Look I believe the bible to be the word of God but it is far from perfect.

Do you believe the Book of Mormon is likewise far from perfect?

 

[smaneck]

That's well said. Most churches that stand behind the reliability of the Bible do not insist that there are no translation errors or outdated references to matters of science or history. They do, however, say that the Bible is accurate in matters of faith and doctrine--which is the reason we value it, trust it, and are guided by it.

That was the position of the church I grew up in.

 

[smaneck]

The bible is without error. There is alot of propaganda and false teachings being spread against the bible's authority especially from progressive "Christianity" stating that it is filled with error

So sad to see answers spreading the dangerous myth that the bible is not the word of God and is just a book with mistakes.

Funny, I haven't heard a single Christian here, evangelical or not suggest that the Bible is 'just a book with mistakes.' As for the Word of God, last I read the Bible is said Jesus was the Word of God.

People simply do not like the idea of hearing that there is an absolute one and only truth out there breathed into life by an eternal judge who is watching every move they make.

Muslims believe that. They just disagree with you as to which book.

If a Christian cannot accept this truth,

You just selected pseudepigrapha as your proof texts

then it is time for them to re-examine their faith/why exactly they are a Christian.

When I was a Christian it was because I believed in Jesus.

 

[smaneck]

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.

All the Bible affirms is inspiration. The rest is just your own concept.