Is the Bible inerrant?

[RamiC]

This is the bible I currently read:

If you are called to understand the original languages, I wish you blessing in the endevour.

Your salvation does not depend on it. Prayer, a good modern english Bible and the help of Christians in real life will do most of us.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

If you are called to understand the original languages, I wish you blessing in the endevour.

Your salvation does not depend on it. Prayer, a good modern english Bible and the help of Christians in real life will do most of us.

Thanks, you too.

I'm still trying to understand why the bible isn't inerrant but we keep quoting it, reading it and referring to the Holy Spirit as it is referenced there so I'll just wait for the knowledge and pray in the meantime.

Appreciate all of your help and God bless!

 

[Fervent]

I guess it's the same as I have with the KJV. I was taught, rightly or wrongly, that King James omitted/edited certain parts which can be found in the Geneva e.g. specifically as it pertains to 'tyrants' and the rights of Kings.

So, the concept that the bible has been edited is not a foreign one to me. I'm just not sure how true it is because it's what I've been 'told' and I don't believe (or disbelieve) everything I'm told. It is taken under consideration pending additional evidence to sway it one way or the other if that makes sense?

I know that the NIV came into circulation c. 1970s based on an introduction excerpt in an NIV bible I found at a hotel which provided the reasoning behind the NIV, who was consulted to come together to a common ground regarding how it was published and translated etc.

But, again, that is putting a lot of trust into 'translations' via 'organizations' and 'individuals' etc.

If Luther, Tyndale, Matthews etc were willing to die for their translations, I feel more inclined to believe in theirs over anything else that came afterwards.

It's not so much that they edited or omitted parts, but they engaged in text criticism of sorts and came to the conclusion that certain parts weren't as likely to be original. Even the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have are from incomplete copies that sometimes have different readings that have been argued over by scholars to put together a Greek and Hebrew codex to translate from. The issue with inerrancy is simply that even if it is true that the original documents were inerrant(and modern scholarship even calls into question whether there were 'original" documents in some cases) everything we're working with has errors. So if our trust in the Bible depends on inerrancy, we don't have a trustworthy Bible. It is the premise that it must be inerrant to be trustworthy that those of us who deny inerrancy deny, not just inerrancy itself.

 

[RamiC]

I'm still trying to understand why the bible isn't inerrant

It is not God, and only God is infallible.

The reason we have the Bible is because early Christians wanted to gather together all the relevant written records that were relevant to the Christian faith. It enables us to read those, for ourselves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate the effort you are putting in as you are astute enough to see that I am disturbed by what I'm reading here for the reasons I have mentioned. I really do appreciate you trying to help me and protect my psyche at the same time!

Despite this, I do study history and I'm aware of the comments and assertions from scholars and lay people alike, regarding the accuracy of the bible as it pertains to who wrote it, when, why some books were included, some removed etc. In my mind, this is not controversial but indicative of critical thinking skills as it pertains to all historical writings, and the provenance of art etc. So, I'm not offended by the questions or the search for consistency etc.

What I haven't done, though, is obtained a satisfactory answer as to where we're all getting the information to confirm scepticism is warranted, to what degree and to what, if any or all, books of the bible this should apply.

So, can I ask: are our claims based on a certain writing? a certain scholar? a certain timeframe? a collection of writings/scholars/timeframes? Where can I go to research and come to any conclusions with the assistance of the Holy Spirit?

Tyndale House has a pass which can be obtained so that I can read ancient texts. I'm not sure how helpful this is going to be for me, though, without the reliance on third-party guidance re: where to start and understanding that what is accessible may not be complete to a lay person etc.

Tools for researchers – Tyndale House

I don't even read bible translations before 1900s, due to my concern that they have been edited, so how far back do I need to go? Do I need to learn Greek? Aramaic? Farsi? Hebrew?

At this stage, I feel like Indiana Jones searching for the Ark of the Covenant that everyone else seems to have already found?

Thanks so much for your help x

Thanks for sharing where your journey is in all of this, CC. It sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders and are on the right track with the Tyndale House resources. Third party guidance like that from fellow Christians is often beneficial.

If you feel like Indiana Jones, then I don't want to spoil the adventure for you. It's enough for me to know that you are doing well on your own journey with the Lord. But, we're here to discuss things if you need some further encouragement.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi, no they weren't trying to sell anything. They were conducted the sermon using their knowledge of the Greek texts and making very brief comparisons between that, and the NIV, which is the church standard. I know that it is the church preference, because I had a meeting with the elders about it and asked them which version they recommended for the most accuracy between the Greek/English, and they categorically stated the NIV despite my own reservations re: this translation but I was there to learn and not debate so didn't ask further questions.

Here is some information about Tyndale Tyndale House – Exceptional research by people serious about Scripture Their whole job is researching the scriptures, origin, translations etc. If you are in England, I believe you can obtain a day pass to go to their library and conduct your own research which I aim to do, once I understand where to start.

The NIV, a Thompson Chain-Reference, was the first Bible I got as a gift, way back 'when.' I don't see any practical problem with using an NIV for basic devotional reading. If you like it, use it. ...... and of, course, you can always use others at will as well, CC. As long as you're already aware (and you are) that the biblical books are foreign and ancient and in need of critical, contextual thought, you're in a good place and it won't matter which English version you're actually using if you understand the essential points the Lord wants us to know for our lives and faith.

Enjoy your journey!

 

[RamiC]

So if our trust in the Bible depends on inerrancy, we don't have a trustworthy Bible. It is the premise that it must be inerrant to be trustworthy that those of us who deny inerrancy deny, not just inerrancy itself.

This bit. We have a trustworthy Jesus Christ, and a perfectly sufficient Bible.

 

[fhansen]

"Most"? It's a technical term, denial of orthodox beliefs is heterodoxy. Heresy is a denial of the essentials of the faith, especially things touching on the nature of God. Whether or not indefeasibility is even heterodox is questionable.

Ok, even with a corrrected definition, I'll repeat, "And yet we're talking about supernaturaltruths here, vital ones, and people naturally seek certainty about them. As it is, folks so often sincerely argue opposing positions as if there's is straight from God's mouth and your's is heresy."

The point is that people and denominations will stand firmly on their beliefs while, at the extreme, use terms such as the antichrist, the harlot of Babylon, or just, as in these forums daily, visciously denounce and oppose another's views, often as if they're satanic. That takes a very high degree of certainty; "infallibility" is effectively modeled if not admitted to. I mean, do people attack when they think their positions are fallible?

Of course, but there has been a wide variety of thought among those who have come before us. So that doesn't make things clearer on its own.

When we go back in time we'd be very hardpressed to find any adherents to TULIP doctrines among the millions of words written by the early fathers, for example. And I find that to be quite significant. And it wasn't Scripture alone that fostered opposition to Arianism, but a "sensus fidei" as well that pervaded even though the nature of Christ hadn't been focused upon or addressed in the chruch as a whole during previous centuries.

It also has some serious drawbacks, especially when it comes to the tendency to avoid verses that challenge the status quo.

And yet we all have our status quos and folks holding to Sola Scriptura have there's challenged as well by others holding to that same doctrine. The meaning of verses/passages regarding importamt matters of the faith are simply often not agreed upon; Scripture is not a catechism, for one thing, and was never intended to serve as one.

 

[Fervent]

Ok, even with a corrrected definition, I'll repeat, "And yet we're talking about supernaturaltruths here, vital ones, and people naturally seek certainty about them. As it is, folks so often sincerely argue opposing positions as if there's is straight from God's mouth and your's is heresy."

The point is that people and denominations will stand firmly on their beliefs while, at the extreme, use terms such as the antichrist, the harlot of Babylon, or just, as in these forums daily, visciously denounce and oppose another's views, often as if they're satanic. That takes a very high degree of certainty; "infallibility" is effectively modeled if not admitted to. I mean, do people attack when they think their positions are fallible?

I think I may have misunderstood you originally. I thought you were accusing me of heresy, not referring to common posturing. It's certainly true that many people present infallibility of their interpretations, but that's more a problem of doctrine like perspicuity and such built on verses like 2 Peter 3:16. It's an error, not something that should be treated as the default.

When we go back in time we'd be very hardpressed to find any adherents to TULIP doctrines among the millions of words written by the early fathers, for example. And I find that to be quite significant. And it wasn't Scripture alone that fostered opposition to Arianism, but a "sensus fidei" as well that pervaded even though the nature of Christ hadn't been focused upon or addressed in the chruch as a whole during previous centuries.

I agree, though I'm a believer in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral model rather than a strict Sola Scriptura one.

And yet we all have our status quos and folks holding to Sola Scriptura have there's challenged as well by others holding to that same doctrine. The meaning of verses/passages regarding importamt matters of the faith are simply often not agreed upon; Scripture is not a catechism, for one thing, and was never intended to serve as one.

It's not, but the catechisms only create a false picture of unity when there is a great deal of division even within the Catholic church. It's simply that some diversity is tolerated while others are repressed.

 

[fhansen]

This bit. We have a trustworthy Jesus Christ, and a perfectly sufficient Bible.

I agree. Where there are various styles of translations and while perfect translations into other languages are impossible anyway even if we had original manuscripts in hand-and while some theological bias may creep in here and there as well-modern translators have more resources and scholarship than ever before and we can trust that the more popular current versions are "inerrant enough" to serve the bible's intended purpose.

 

[fhansen]

I think I may have misunderstood you originally. I thought you were accusing me of heresy

Yes, sorry, that's not what I meant

 

[Fervent]

Yes, sorry, that's not what I meant

I get that now, and the issue you were expressing is certainly a common reality but its roots go deeper than just inerrancy since it depends on a belief in supernatural clarity and a denial that every reader interprets what they are reading.

 

[ChubbyCherub]

Thanks all.

I think I misread this whole thread as the bible wasn't a trustworthy source for basically anything and I wanted to know a) why this was the case b) to what everyone was referring to if this is the case c) how this could help me and my family on our journey towards God d) how anyone could believe in God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit from a text that no one believes...........

It was a bit shocking but maybe that's because I misread/misunderstood the premise of the whole thread and I probably should have realized that when I saw that the bible was being quoted despite what I thought I understood.

@RamiC @Fervent @2PhiloVoid - thank you all for your patience and assistance.

It's good to know I have somewhere to go with questions because my family has very tough questions that someone who believes, due to a Christian background, isn't really in the habit of asking until challenged.

God bless you all and thanks so much.

 

[RamiC]

Thanks all.

I think I misread this whole thread as the bible wasn't a trustworthy source for basically anything and I wanted to know a) why this was the case b) to what everyone was referring to if this is the case c) how this could help me and my family on our journey towards God d) how anyone could believe in God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit from a text that no one believes...........

To reject the idea of inerrancy is not to say that the Bible cannot be believed at all.

Prayer can be a way to believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that is how I ended up knowing the Bible was true. Jesus is alive and He will hear you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks all.

I think I misread this whole thread as the bible wasn't a trustworthy source for basically anything and I wanted to know a) why this was the case b) to what everyone was referring to if this is the case c) how this could help me and my family on our journey towards God d) how anyone could believe in God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit from a text that no one believes...........

It was a bit shocking but maybe that's because I misread/misunderstood the premise of the whole thread and I probably should have realized that when I saw that the bible was being quoted despite what I thought I understood.

@RamiC @Fervent @2PhiloVoid - thank you all for your patience and assistance.

It's good to know I have somewhere to go with questions because my family has very tough questions that someone who believes, due to a Christian background, isn't really in the habit of asking until challenged.

God bless you all and thanks so much.

I can understand your initial misunderstanding. My comments about how I think innerrancy isn't a 'needed' term is because, as a philosopher, especially as one who focuses upon Historiography and Archaeology of Israel and the whole field of The Philosophy of History, I'd rather use more mediated words to describe the literary status of God's Authority which we find within the Scriptures.

While I won't refer to the Bible as inerrant, you will see me instead refer to it as: "historically substantive, "prophetic," "reliable," along with other similar, academically considered, mediated descriptors.

So, yes, I still think the Bible is Inspired and Authoritative.

 

[Fervent]

Thanks all.

I think I misread this whole thread as the bible wasn't a trustworthy source for basically anything and I wanted to know a) why this was the case b) to what everyone was referring to if this is the case c) how this could help me and my family on our journey towards God d) how anyone could believe in God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit from a text that no one believes...........

It was a bit shocking but maybe that's because I misread/misunderstood the premise of the whole thread and I probably should have realized that when I saw that the bible was being quoted despite what I thought I understood.

@RamiC @Fervent @2PhiloVoid - thank you all for your patience and assistance.

It's good to know I have somewhere to go with questions because my family has very tough questions that someone who believes, due to a Christian background, isn't really in the habit of asking until challenged.

God bless you all and thanks so much.

Inerrancy and the overall trustworthiness are too often tethered together as if they are the same, so it's understandable that you would be suspicious. It seems especially problematic if your only tether to the faith is the Bible, but the reality is that it is the historic witness that tethers us together. And by that I don't mean some mystical tradition that is beyond question but the ongoing transmission from generation of Christians to generation of Christians. We know the Bible is trustworthy because we see how it changes the lives of the people who put it into practice, and there are a number of ways to understand what the Bible is that are easily overlooked with how many people talk about these things.