Does the doctrine of inerrancy make the Bible into God?

The Thadman said:

Angela, many churches ascribe to many different canons. Because of this, there is not one canon, but dozens. The very idea of canon, itself, is brought from a council whereby people sit down and determine which books that they, within their individual community, will hold as authoritative. Generally, groups that branch from them do not re-convene on the canon.

Some canons have the Old Apocrypha, others don't. Some have all of the letters attributed to Paul, others don't. Early Ebionite canon didn't have a single letter from Paul, where Eastern Syrian canon does not have 5 of the minor letters and the entire first part of John chapter 8 (the woman caught in adultery). Some canons are critical and and do not include traditionally canon verses due to reasons of historic authenticity (NIV), where others keep everything (KJV).* Many, many canons.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the discrepancies in canons. However, the vast majority of scripture remains the same across canons except for heterodox groups.

* Usually one doesn't look at translations as seperate canons, but if you think about it, any translation must go through a canonical process to decide what material to include and, more importantly, how to render it.

Click to expand...

The material to include is fixed by the translators' affiliations. As for translations. most Christians historically have accepted a wide variety of translations as legitimate. Translation is not an issue in canonicity.

AngCath said:

both Holy Scripture and the Church get their authority from God who spoke and speaks through them both.

Click to expand...

I am all for it. However when you open the doors to ongoing revelations who do you trust? Benny Hinn claims to be having revelations all the time. Do I put my faith (& life savings) in him then? How do we discern & where do we draw the line?

angela 2 said:

I'm aware of the discrepancies in canons. However, the vast majority of scripture remains the same across canons except for heterodox groups.

Click to expand...

Heterodox according to who, I think would be the appropriate question. In the earliest strains of Christianity, there were canons that were rather wild in disagreement (some which did not agree at all). It wasn't until the rise of the Roman Catholic Church that this "vast majority" that you mention solidified.

The material to include is fixed by the translators' affiliations.

Click to expand...

Affiliation to denomination and academic school of thought. People who ascribe to a Critical approach see a reconstruction as cannon, where a Traditional approach sees the Byzantine text as authentic, or the Received text as authentic. Each translator must choose which verses in which form within a book are canon.

As for translations. most Christians historically have accepted a wide variety of translations as legitimate. Translation is not an issue in canonicity.

Click to expand...

Not a direct issue in canonicity, but a very important and closely entwined issue. How to render a body of material is just as important, or more important in some cases, than what material to include.

Peace,
-Steve-o

When The Bible becomes THE WORD OF GOD instead of the documentation of man's search for understanding God, then The Bible becomes an idol. The Word of God throughout scriptures is nearly always something spoken or experienced through dreams and visions. It is rarely if never referred to as written. The physical manifestation that The Word takes on in scripture is in the person of Joshua, Ieshua, Yashua...whatever... (Jesus).
It MUST be remembered that our Bible is a compromise of inclusion and exclusion by the 72 Jewish scholars, The Roman Catholic Church and various political leaders throughout the last 3000 years. Some of the books are written by Hebrews, some by Romans, some by Greeks, and some by other semitic peoples. Few if any were written by their name sakes. Perhaps the writings are "breathed by God" and perhaps the Canon was preordained by God... you would best be careful before assuming the inerrancy and total truth of your publication that you read.
Charles

i find that to be an interesting concept to put with a book, now that i think about it more and more. i agree with what was said. the bible is a collection of the progress of mankind's search with God, and the pivatol moments we see as being with Jesus.

now what does inerrancy really mean? freedom from error or untruths correct?

well, where is the error in scriptures? this is one of my big hangups with people saying that scriptures are errant. the argument is solely based on an assumption that inerrancy is all about this literal 6 day creation, and all the "non-liberal" agendas. it's also an assumption based upon the thinking pattern that one has left behind.

i personally don't see any error in the scripture. i don't look at the Bible as a science book. so any statement that the world is flat in the scriptures can't be taken literally, when we have sufficient evidence that it isn't. that was written back in a time, that believeing what kind of shape the planet was in, was useless, and honestly without seeing the earth and without researching basic science, i can see how the ancient people may have thought the earth was flat. can't beat them over the head for being ignorant when i see the Bible mentioning a miracle, how can that fall in the lines of being inerrant or errant? either one, the miracles are more of a metaphor/parable to show a greater good, a greater lesson, or they actually happened. i figure 2 things:
1. if the miracles were actually metaphors/parables, then those things cannot fall under the criteria of being inerrant or errant. metaphors and parables aren't factual events to be based upon as something that with or without error.

2. a God who created this world, the universe, just has the power to, to do as He sees fit, and kind of mingle with the laws of science, and then put it back together the right way if He wants to. why put anything past God? (please don't that take in a negative sense.) i find it ironic how people will dimiss the miracles of the Bible because of science, but yet believe that God is all powerful to create this world through evolution or whatever. just seems odd to say such things to me.

i look at the Epistles. the stuff about church structure, and all that. how is this an issue of inerrancy vs. errancy? when the stuff was written at a time that the church was just starting to form, and two, when it was written in a completely different culture and time?

i'm sure the list could go on and on, but i'll end the list here.

my question is how do these things fall along the idea of being judged as inerrant vs errant? if their written for their time, they are inerrant. because at that time, it fitted perfectly. it fitted perfectly in the culture and everything. and if we want to believe that God progresses everything, then why should we even try to judge the scriptures as errant, or inerrant?

It's not really a matter of "inerrant" vs "errant," but it is a matter of viewpoint and agenda.

Each author of each individual book or source had their own images of God, events, and (in the NT) Jesus. Within the Gospel of John, alone, we can see four images of Jesus at work. The Signs Gospel author wanted to portray him as the Messiah through events and almost-miracles dubbed "signs." The Dialogues Layer author wanted to portray him as a Rabbi arguing with other Rabbis. The Fourth Gospel redactor wanted to portray him as the Word of God (Memra Elohim) incarnate (yet not God, himself).

Sometimes these images do conflict with one another, especially with some of the broader questions. Does God tempt us? In various places throughout the Tanakh, yes, indeed God does tempt and test us. The author of James, however, doesn't see it this way. Merely a difference of opinion.

In the Tanakh, as well, we have multiple tellings of the same story. For example: Kings and Samuel. They tell essencially the same story, but many details are different, and each has it's own agenda. The same with the two creation stories in Genesis, and many other parallel stories throughout the Bible (mostly the Gospels in the NT).

Overall, we're lucky to have more than one side of a story. This allows us to sort through each author's agenda and biases and catch a glimpse at what actually happened.

Peace!
-Steve-o

At the beginning of Christianity there was struggle of different groups, and the scripture had undergone various alterations for the sake of winning in theological disputes. This lasted until 4th century or even later. Then the won group established the canon according to their views. Not only the alterations were the method of winning, but also other acts improper for Christian teaching itself. The won group had also given their understanding of the canon, which Church Christianity adheres up to now.

An inerrant Bible needs an inerrant audience to inerrantly interpret/understand its inerrant message. This makes people inerrant which is worse than making the Bible inerrant.

If the Bible is inerrant and we are imperfect people, then the Bible is irrelevant to us because we by our own nature don't get it.

:paxigoth: said:

An inerrant Bible needs an inerrant audience to inerrantly interpret/understand its inerrant message. This makes people inerrant which is worse than making the Bible inerrant.

If the Bible is inerrant and we are imperfect people, then the Bible is irrelevant to us because we by our own nature don't get it.

Click to expand...

that's just it paxigoth. i see what your saying totally.

but i just find this inerrancy stuff to have no part with the scriptures. the scriptures isn't inerrant or errant. it's a Divine Book, nothing else. it seems predictable if someone once looked at the Bible in an inerrant format, then had a deconversion from that or let's say they just don't believe it anymore, that the next approach would be to see the bible as errant, fully of errors. but what i find odd is those who believe the Bible is errant still want to follow errancy. i mean even your point here paxigoth doesn't really shed any light on it for me.

ok so let's say the Bible is errant, because we are errant people. that does us a lot of good doesn't it? and i see your point tho that if the scriptures are inerrant and we errant people we won't get it. even the reason of saying, fight off of the old "man" and follow the "truth" seems a bit comical anymore. cause it's like a teeter totter. one day, i'm up and getting it right, the next day, oh no i'm being guided by the desceiver, and we can never reach the mark correct? so where's the middle line, if there is any?

but i guess if maybe we take the scriptures out of this inerrancy/errancy idea, maybe we'll see the scripture better again.

i guess in the end i see the scriptures as a Divine revelation of God. a group of people in a certain culture is going to to take it differently than us in our culture today. it's clearly obvious too if we look at history. what is right for one culture, may, or may not be right for another culture. it may be profitable for teaching, or it may not be as seen as that blessing/time that a certain people were with God, or we can make the stories, the lessons profitable today for our own culture and for our own society. that's how i see the scriptures myself at this point. even tho oddly enough, there are some very specific views that i'm changing on, with the help of the scriptures. so i guess to put it simply i'm somewhere between, the scriptures are inerrant/the scriptures are a guide or maybe both. but i'm definetely no conservative type of inerrant believer (that last part makes me laugh, saying an inerrant believer, haha.)

My walk with Jesus doesn't depend on the bible being errant or inerrant, just as his walk with me doesn't depend on my being errant or inerrant.

To Holo:


Amen. I say to you, that one who walks with God doesn't need the Bible at all. Why read the abridged version when you can get the Truth from the Author of Truth directly?
Charles

Seek Justice
Love Mercy
Walk Humbly

Whoa, I'm pretty outspoken, but I wouldn't have dared say that here. But I agree. The bible is God's word to the extent that He reveals truth to me through it.

holo said:

Whoa, I'm pretty outspoken, but I wouldn't have dared say that here. But I agree. The bible is God's word to the extent that He reveals truth to me through it.

Click to expand...

Amen again, wise child.
Speak the truth with boldness! Don't get me wrong, I read one of my Bibles nearly every day. Just 'cause I don't need it, doesn't mean I don't want it.

Charles

Thanks, old man