Why does it matter if the Bible is inerrant?

[trophy33]

Looks like proof of unbelief to me.

You either believe Scripture, or you don't.

Your choice.

I choose to believe it.

Empty words. After it has been proven that Gospels are not perfect, why is suddenly not believing that epistles or Acts are perfect "not believing Scriptures"?

Come on, enough of these logical fallacies. "You either believe Scripture or you don't" is obviously a false dichotomy.

 

[ARBITER01]

Come on, enough of these logical fallacies. "You either believe Scripture or you don't" is obviously a false dichotomy.

It's a very true statement. Either you believe in the words of GOD are you don't. There is no in between.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a very true statement. Either you believe in the words of GOD are you don't. There is no in between.

WRONG!

 

[Fervent]

It's a very true statement. Either you believe in the words of GOD are you don't. There is no in between.

This statement would be far more at home in Islam where their text is supposedly the literal dictation of God rather than in Christianity where the views all boil down to inspiration of some sort. And there is quite a bit of latitude on how one understands how inspiration operated/operates.

 

[ARBITER01]

WRONG!

Really? You think there is grey area with GOD on this?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Where in scripture does it say that GOD's word is inerrant and infallible?

Why would it matter? Would we believe any book that says it is inerrant and infallible just because it says it is?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't remember. . .but each writer does not always include the whole record.
You have to interweave the accounts to get the complete picture.

The Gospel writers didn't always worry about getting every single event in perfect time order. Instead, they sometimes grouped stories together or arranged them in ways that would help teach important lessons about who Jesus was and what he came to do.

 

[ARBITER01]

Why would it matter? Would we believe any book that says it is inerrant and infallible just because it says it is?

You didn't answer the question, but let me answer it for you,.... it doesn't.

 

[ARBITER01]

The Gospel writers didn't always worry about getting every single event in perfect time order. Instead, they sometimes grouped stories together or arranged them in ways that would help teach important lessons about who Jesus was and what he came to do.

That is true, and they had to rely upon sources other than themselves for the accounts a lot of times, such as the case with Luke.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think you are missing the problem. If God did not supernaturally protect Gospels from errors, there is no reason why should other parts of the Bible be free of errors. Just because we have only one version of for example epistles is by the nature of those writings. It is not a proof of anything.

I am a little confused by what I am reading so may I ask for clarification?
Do you mean: "if God didn't protect one part of the Bible from errors, then we can't trust that other parts are error-free either." and then "The fact we only have one version of certain biblical texts (like the epistles/letters in the New Testament) doesn't prove anything about their accuracy or divine origin."

 

[Clare73]

Empty words. After it has been proven that Gospels are not perfect,

My faith is not based in their human "perfection". . .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really? You think there is grey area with GOD on this?

Yep. If there wasn't a functional grey area, there wouldn't be dozens of interpretative traditions of Christianity, all claiming that they, and only they, have the hot-line to the Holy Spirit.

Faith isn't dependent upon having a New Testament in your hands and reading it correctly. It does help though.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You didn't answer the question, but let me answer it for you,.... it doesn't.

Many will tell you it is God breathed. From 2 Timothy 3:16

 

[ARBITER01]

Yep. If there wasn't a functional grey area, there wouldn't be dozens of interpretative traditions of Christianity, all claiming that they, and only they, have the hot-line to the Holy Spirit.

Faith isn't dependent upon having a New Testament in your hands and reading it correctly. It does help though.

Sorry, mankind may work like that, but GOD doesn't. If you are not sealed unto the day of redemption, then your probably not His.

 

[ARBITER01]

Many will tell you it is God breathed. From 2 Timothy 3:16

Does it say infallible?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Does it say infallible?

Doesn't "God breathed" imply that? To many it does.

I don't think so. Nor do I think 2 Timothy is referring to his own writing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry, mankind may work like that, but GOD doesn't. If you are not sealed unto the day of redemption, then your probably not His.

Oh, puh-lease. Spare me the oh so enlightend Pentecostal one-upmanship. I see you as a fellow Christian, you can and should do the same for me in return. Besides, you don't even know what I believe, so maybe put a lid on the condemnation and overassurance.

 

[ARBITER01]

Oh, puh-lease. Spare me the oh so enlightend Pentecostal one-upmanship. I see you as a fellow Christian, you can and should do the same for me in return. Besides, you don't even know what I believe, so maybe put a lid on the condemnation and overassurance.

Yea, I'm certainly forcing you to reply to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yea, I'm certainly forcing you to reply to me.

My decision to reply is one of the "grey areas."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yea, I'm certainly forcing you to reply to me.

P.S. Have a blessed evening!