Why is it necessary for a Christian to believe that the Bible has no errors?

[OzSpen]

It isn't a logical fallacy or a red herring. It was the main point of what I was talking about BEFORE you responded to me. You went off on a tangent based on a supporting point with an argument that didn't change the end result. Whether it had been 300 years or 700 years, the argument still stands. There was a long period of time wherein a person could not practice the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture because he could not definitively say what Scripture was. Even then, most could not practice this doctrine because the Scripture was not fully available in most places outside of the Church, and even then many Churches had to do without. Access to Scripture was such an issue that the Canons of the Church Councils required that a man who wished to become Bishop must memorize the entire Psalter. Even after the Printing Press, regular access for the average person to the Scriptures was difficult, as most copies still took a prohibitively long time to make, and rhetoric translations were condemned as heretical in the west, with several translators (such as John Wycliffe and William Tyndale) being murdered for the translation of Scripture into the language of the common man.

So in reality, your argument over the exact time it took to canonize Scripture is a red herring from the original point: that the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy was impractical in the early Church because of the lack of a recognized canon and actual access to inerrant Scriptures, and is impractical now because of the lack of access to an inerrant copy of Scripture. So, if you do not wish to engage my original point, feel free not to respond.

It was a red herring. See the description of red herring HERE. When you don't deal with the content I raise and are off and running with what you want to talk about, you are using a red herring fallacy.

Seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of a red herring when you make this kind of statement: 'So in reality, your argument over the exact time it took to canonize Scripture is a red herring from the original point'. Or perhaps you don't want to acknowledge the fallacious reasoning that you have used in your response to me.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry, but I’m not interested in conducting a one-man argument on evolution and the archaeology and history of Israel. Discussions in forums where such discussions normally occur do not make me optimistic that it's worth the amount of time it takes to do it. It’s pretty obvious that most adherents of inerrancy reject significant portions of mainstream astronomy (in maintaining a young earth), biology (in rejecting evolution), archaeology and history (in maintaining the accuracy of OT accounts of the exodus and other events).

You’ve reacted as if I were accusing you of ignorance. I am not. Rather, evangelical commitments have led to the development of separate evangelical history, archaeology, and Biblical scholarship. The people doing it, as far as I can tell, are real scholars. I certainly would never consider hem to be ignorant. But their theological commitment lead them to conclusions that differ from non-evangelicals.

I’m not going to be as complimentary in the areas involving biology and astronomy, as I’m not aware of any real “creation science.” However that’s an area in which at least some evangelicals (though certainly not all) have found ways to interpret Genesis to be consistent with at least parts of standard biology and astronomy. However as far as I can tell, evolution is still rejected by many and probably most who accept inerrancy, and young-earth creationism is widespread though not universal. Do you disagree?

If you think I'm wrong, and most adherents of inerrancy actually do accept evolution, mainstream astronomy, etc, then perhaps we do need to look for documentation, but I'd be really surprised.

I'm still waiting for your examples of specifics of evangelical scholars who maintain the points you are trying to press.

Without evidence, you are making assertions and that proves nothing - nothing more than they are your assertions.

Could you be guilty of committing a hasty generalization logical fallacy?

 

[True Science]

[deleted]

 

[OzSpen]

So not only is Evangelical Inerrancy bunk, but so is Protestant Sola Scriptura.

God doesn't want you worshiping mere paper and ink. He wants you worshiping him.

It seems that we are not talking about the same subject.

 

[shadowhunter]

Asked this on another forum, and thought I'd ask it here, too.

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors. (errors of man)

What do you think?

It is more important not to assume that when you do not like a scripture, that it is the result of an error. Many people never learn to read the OT as Jesus and the apostles did, and then assume they are qualified to point out errors.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

Asked this on another forum, and thought I'd ask it here, too.

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors. (errors of man)

What do you think?

That there are inconsistencies in the Bible was well understood and accepted in the early Church. We see evidence of this, for example, in the homilies of John Chrysostom in the 4th century, who called attention to inconsistencies in the Gospels as proof that the events described really happened and were not made up, since eyewitnesses to real events frequently have slightly different recollections of what happened and what was said.

Similarly, while I would be reluctant to say that the Old Testament has "errors", I also don't think that we can say that the Old Testament as we have it is exactly "inerrant". There are hundreds of passages where we do not really know what the original Hebrew actually meant. One could claim (and many do) that there is some inerrant "autograph" somewhere, but that is really of no practical use for someone wanting to understand Scripture here and now.

None of this takes anything away from Scripture. It is free of theological error. Whether Jesus fed 5,000 people or actually fed 4,893 people with 5 loaves and 2 fishes (or maybe 4 loaves and 3 fishes) doesn't really matter. What matters is that he was able to perform a miracle of feeding an incredibly large number of people with a very small amount of food.

As far as I know, what I have just expressed is the opinion of the Churches of Apostolic succession (e.g. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans). I am sure there are others.

Since you asked, that's what I think

 

[Deidre32]

It is more important not to assume that when you do not like a scripture, that it is the result of an error. Many people never learn to read the OT as Jesus and the apostles did, and then assume they are qualified to point out errors.

that's a good point.

 

[Gary the Kid]

Not too sure if I want to go where the Lamb with the 7 eyes and 7 horns dwell along with the 4 living animal-human hybrid creatures. Oh that's right, Revelations calls it the new heaven. So I guess all the Bible is true, except for the large chunk they removed some 120 years ago..........

 

[Albion]

. So I guess all the Bible is true, except for the large chunk they removed some 120 years ago..........

What chunk would that be?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

If any portion of the Bible is errant, how can we be sure of what is true? And if you believe the Bible isn't without error, you essentially have to believe that the Holy Spirit is erroneous. Where would that get you?

 

[sculleywr]

It was a red herring. See the description of red herring HERE. When you don't deal with the content I raise and are off and running with what you want to talk about, you are using a red herring fallacy.

Seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of a red herring when you make this kind of statement: 'So in reality, your argument over the exact time it took to canonize Scripture is a red herring from the original point'. Or perhaps you don't want to acknowledge the fallacious reasoning that you have used in your response to me.

No, it was not a red herring, because while mine was FOCUSED on the MAIN TOPIC, yours was off on an irrelevant jaunt that didn't address the main topic of the post to which you responded, which was this:

"Sola Scriptura and the doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy are impracticable doctrines".

You decided to run off on a detailed discussion of the textual history of the Canon of Scripture, focusing on a technicality found in a single portion of the post that made up a small percentage of my post. I refused to entertain the irrelevant topic you brought up for several reasons, not the least of which being that it was so far off topic that it needed to have its own thread, one which I would not be joining because I simply have no interest in continuing the discussion, and never DID.

You raised content that was irrelevant to the original post that I wrote. Therefore, you are guilty of both red herring and pot/kettle. Now, would you like to get to the original topic? If not, this is my last response to you.

(Post was delayed in time due to computer breakdown and bad days of flaring UC)

 

[sculleywr]

If any portion of the Bible is errant, how can we be sure of what is true? And if you believe the Bible isn't without error, you essentially have to believe that the Holy Spirit is erroneous. Where would that get you?

But which Bible is inerrant? Where is it?

If you can't point to an inerrant copy of scripture, then what's the point of the doctrine of inerrancy? It's like the secret coming of Jesus taught about by Jehovah's Witnesses. They teach that He came in secret, but can't say when or where or to whom He came. There is literally no application for the doctrine. And given the state of the early Church, there never was.

 

[ISTANDBYJESUS]

Asked this on another forum, and thought I'd ask it here, too.

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors. (errors of man)

What do you think?

If you can not hear the word of God in the king James bible, it is because you are not God's sheep: The Lord's sheep hear his voice, which is the truth, and the truth is the word of God.

Further more:


2 Kings 24:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.




Jeremiah 22:28-30King James Version (KJV)

28 Is this man Coniah(JEHOIACHIN) a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.
30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And so he was written "childless", a man with out a seed:

2 Chronicles 36:9King James Version (KJV)
9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

The only thing in error is faithless men trying to correct God to their own shame.

 

[sculleywr]

If you can not hear the word of God in the king James bible, it is because you are not God's sheep: The Lord's sheep hear his voice, which is the truth, and the truth is the word of God.

Further more:


2 Kings 24:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.




Jeremiah 22:28-30King James Version (KJV)

28 Is this man Coniah(JEHOIACHIN) a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.
30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And so he was written "childless", a man with out a seed:

2 Chronicles 36:9King James Version (KJV)
9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

The only thing in error is faithless men trying to correct God to their own shame.

Amazing how the KJV Onlyist isn't on the thread designed for this. But since you're here, please, for the rest of the class, tell us the chapter and verse that says the KJV is perfect? or that the KJV alone is the word of God? I've read many Bibles. The Word of God for me has always been the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

deleted for double posting after system took me to the wrong post :/

 

[sculleywr]

What chunk would that be?

The large chunk of Scripture that 1800 years worth of Christians universally called Scripture that Protestants couldn't reconcile their doctrines with, so rather than change their doctrines to fit Scripture, they changed Scripture to fit their doctrines. They decided to use what is the true deuterocanon of the Old Testament, a canon designed by Jews asking "how do I remove Christ from these so that Jews won't find Christianity?"

 

[hedrick]

The large chunk of Scripture that 1800 years worth of Christians universally called Scripture that Protestants couldn't reconcile their doctrines with, so rather than change their doctrines to fit Scripture, they changed Scripture to fit their doctrines. They decided to use what is the true deuterocanon of the Old Testament, a canon designed by Jews asking "how do I remove Christ from these so that Jews won't find Christianity?"

That's a bit too much conspiracy theory. The most persuasive OT pointers to Christ are in the Hebrew OT. There were always two different OT canons, Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew wasn't made by removing books from the Greek.

 

[Albion]

The large chunk of Scripture that 1800 years worth of Christians universally called Scripture that Protestants couldn't reconcile their doctrines with, so rather than change their doctrines to fit Scripture, they changed Scripture to fit their doctrines. They decided to use what is the true deuterocanon of the Old Testament, a canon designed by Jews asking "how do I remove Christ from these so that Jews won't find Christianity?"

What an imagination you have.

 

[sculleywr]

What an imagination you have.

Doesn't take much of an imagination if you do this thing called "reading what the people actually wrote". The man who wrote your New Testament canon? Yeah, he point blank called the Wisdom of Solomon Scripture. Your canon of the Old Testament didn't exist in his time. It wouldn't be formed for another 200 years (contrary to the Javneh/Jamnia myth), when the Masoretes came around in the JEWISH religion.

So we have a choice. We can use a canon used by Christians, and called Scripture by Christians for the whole of the time since Christ left this earth, and was referenced many times by the New Testament writers.

Or we can use a canon created by people who rejected Christ.

Which would be the Christian decision? According to Protestants, the enemies of Christ are a better source for a tradition to put in authority over Scripture than those who loved and died so that we could have the gospel. And yes, I called the Masoretes the enemies of Christ. They knew full well about Christianity. They knew what we preached.

But it doesn't matter, a person can tell himself whatever he wants to avoid the fact that it was Sola Scriptura UNTIL certain Scriptures contradict what we believe. The alteration of Scripture in the Protestant Reformation is no different than what the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing. The Protestants were once rejected by the mainline Christians, too. Roman Catholics refused to call Protestants Christian churches, as do Christians today refuse to call JW's Christians.

 

[sculleywr]

That's a bit too much conspiracy theory. The most persuasive OT pointers to Christ are in the Hebrew OT. There were always two different OT canons, Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew wasn't made by removing books from the Greek.

There are even more OBVIOUS references to Christ in the missing books. Wisdom of Solomon identifying that the weeping prophecied in Jeremiah would be caused by a decree commanding the murder of "holy innocents" (Early Jewish texts call children that), for example. The fact is, there was one canon of Scripture in the time of Christ, comprised of books that had been written in Hebrew and Greek, all of which existed in the Greek, but not all in the Hebrew. The ONLY group that rejected the Greek texts were the Sadducees, who, like Medieval Catholics, believed Scripture could only be written in the holiest of languages, meaning Hebrew. In Scripture, Christ goes out of his way sometimes to use the Greek in their presence, proving them wrong.

As to your concept of a conspiracy theory, it's supported by reading the early Christian writers, who unanimously agree on the canon being the Greek Septuagint. The only groups in antiquity that rejected the Septuagintal canon were Jews, and Jews are NOT Christians. They should have no effect on Christian canons. Especially not AFTER the Ascension of Christ!

And yet you use the canon of the Sadducees? Or do you choose the canon of early Christians? You can take your pick. Read the footnoted writings of early Christian writers and tell me what they called Scripture. You'll be hardpressed to find one that rejects the books you reject.