Is the Bible inerrant?

[fhansen]

Even if we had infallible interpreters, we'd be stuck interpreting them as well. Unless you're advocating that each of us is infallible in our interpretations. So it doesn't seem to me that we can affirm either, at least unless we're simply going to be insisting on such matters dogmatically and don't deal in the practical realities involved.

Well, all who claim to know the full gospel truth based on Scripture alone are asserting infalliblity, whether they acknowledge that fact or not. And then others of us do, indeed, interpret their interpretations as well as interpreting the positions of those who do not go by Scripture alone but who also point to a historic legacy of beliefs that existed before the new testament, at least, was written.

The point is that even if we somewhere possess a perfect codified body of Christian beliefs accurately reflecting God's word, that in no way guarantees that anyone will necessarily embrace it. Either way this situation is open to being a messy affair as we less-than-perfect humans have been left here on earth with this treasure, this revelation of God's nature and will, from a God who revealed himself so that His perfect will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Similiarly, even if we possessed the texts fresh from the author's pens, and spoke their language fluently, we still wouldn't necessarily know their intended meanings perfectly.

The bottom line for myself is in understanding that biblical exegesis alone is not at all a sure way to fully or even sufficiently know God's will for man. It's left to all of us to discern, with the help of grace, if and where we hear His voice. I certainly hear it in the bible despite any seeming contradictions, ambiguities, vagueness etc. I hear it more clearly explained in light of the historic understanding of His church. It's interesting that the apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss a matter which they did not resolve by Scripture, via the old testament, but by means of the new revelation they'd received through Christ. Related to this, the Bereans, conscientious as they were in studying Scripture, could not understand it without the still non-biblical imput of disciples who had experienced or been taught about a new Way. Likewise was the experience of the Ethiopian Eunuch with Paul.

 

[fhansen]

Or even an errant translation of an inerrant text..."However, a 1631 mistake in an English Bible literally turned a passage – one of the Ten Commandments, no less – on its head. Rather than reading “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” this edition declares, “Thou shalt commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14)." Damnable Typos & the Bible

Ok, and yet even if we somehow had a perfect translation, that would not in itself guarantee that we'd understand the meaning of Scripture perfectly.

 

[Fervent]

Well, all who claim to know the full gospel truth based on Scripture alone are asserting infalliblity, whether they acknowledge that fact or not. And then others of us do, indeed, interpret their interpretations as well as interpreting the positions of those who do not go by Scripture alone but who also point to a historic legacy of beliefs that existed before the new testament, at least, was written.

Infallibility is not the only option, nor is everyone who claims to possess a sufficient gospel understanding for salvation need not even assert indefeasibility for their own understanding.

The point is that even if we somewhere possess a perfect codified body of Christian beliefs accurately reflecting God's word, that in no way guarantees that anyone will necessarily embrace it. Either way this situation is open to being a messy affair as we less-than-perfect humans have been left here on earth with this treasure, this revelation of God's nature and will, from a God who revealed himself so that His perfect will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Good thing we have continued presence of the Holy Spirit.

Similiarly, even if we possessed the texts fresh from the author's pens, and spoke their language fluently, we still wouldn't necessarily know their intended meanings perfectly.

Yeah, which doesn't seem to be an issue.

The bottom line for myself is in understanding that biblical exegesis alone is not at all a sure way to fully or even sufficiently know God's will for man. It's left to all of us to discern, with the help of grace, if and where we hear His voice. I certainly hear it in the bible despite any seeming contradictions, ambiguities, vagueness etc. I hear it more clearly explained in light of the historic understanding of His church. It's interesting that the apostles met in Jerusalem to discuss a matter which they did not resolve by Scripture, via the old testament, but by means of the new revelation they'd received through Christ. Related to this, the Bereans, conscientious as they were in studying Scripture, could not understand it without the still non-biblical imput of disciples who had experienced or been taught about a new Way. Likewise was the experience of the Ethiopian Eunuch with Paul.

yeah, exegesis alone certainly isn't sufficient. Without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we would only be spinning our wheels in interpretation.