Inerrancy and Inspiration of Scripture

hedrick said:

The OP asked for books. I recommend Peter Enns, The Bible Tells Me So. It looks at how the Bible really works. Inerrancy fails to understand what is actually giving on.

Click to expand...

He is a great author IMHO.

Not being an expert in either Biblical inspiration or inerrancy, It would appear there are a few minor historical errors in the Bible. As for it being inspired, if anyone can show precisely how God inspired the writers I'd be interested to see their proof, especially if we're talking about the long winded genealogies in some OT books. Why would God bother?

So there seems to be a debate in modern Catholicism, if not Christianity as a whole, about total or limited inerrancy, as summed up in the final paragraph from this link -

Biblical inerrancy for Catholics: Dei Verbum, chapter 3

(Notes - "post-conciliar" in this case is post Vatican II; DV is "Dei Verbum" which is the document which came out of Vatican II in relation to the Bible; SJ refers to a Jesuit; SS apparently means a priest of the Society of Saint-Sulpice)

As for post-conciliar theologians, some version of limited inerrancy is almost universally espoused (outside of traditionalist circles). The two giants of twentieth-century American Catholic biblical scholarship, Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ,[8] and Fr. Raymond Brown, SS,[9] espoused this view.[10] The advantages of limited inerrancy are that it is rational, it has the authority of Newman, it accords best with the final wording of DV, it is more coherent with the view of revelation given in chapter 1 of DV than is total inerrancy (self-revelation, not facts), and it allows Catholic theology to bypass fruitless and self-defeating debates about trivia and minutiae. This is what I tell my students: when you get to the pearly gates, is St. Peter going to give you a pop quiz about who was high priest when David ate the show-bread or who Belshazzar’s father was? No, he’s going to ask you whether, by God’s grace, you performed the works of mercy.

Click to expand...

Put it this way - we have a show on TV called "The Chase Australia" (Channel 7 locally for what it's worth, and there are overseas versions), in which a team of four mere mortals try to beat these "Chasers" who must have photographic memories in what might be called a pop quiz, for money of course.

The "Chasers" astonish me with their general knowledge - they not only know the facts, but they often know the background to the facts.

So when we front up for our own judgement, is God going to expect us to be able to prove the Bible was totally or partially inerrant, that is will He expect us to be Biblical Chasers, or is He going to be more interested in what we've done with our life, and how we treated other people in particular?

Bob Crowley said:

As for it being inspired, if anyone can show precisely how God inspired the writers I'd be interested to see their proof, especially if we're talking about the long winded genealogies in some OT books. Why would God bother?

Click to expand...

I can't say that this observation is precise in any way, but when I read some of the writings of the early church that were not included in the canon of scripture, the inspiration of our New Testament became quite obvious. There really is something special and inspired (or at a minimum "inspiring") about our Bible. It reaches me in a way that those other books don't.

But I agree that EVERY word does not have to be inspired to consider a writing inspired.

Percivale said:

Whether the end of Mark 7:19 is Jesus' words or commentary, or just how you translate it does not affect the fact that Jesus was disagreeing with the food laws of the OT. Maybe he would say of them and many other OT laws what he said of the permission of divorce in Deuteronomy 24, that it was given because of the hardness of their hearts; it was a temporary accommodation of where the israelites were morally at the time. But is that consistent with saying not one jot will fall, and people should not disobey the least of the OT commands?

Click to expand...

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jot here refers to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

"A jot is the name of the least letter of an alphabet or the smallest part of a piece of writing." https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings... its specialist typographical,we 'jot it down'.

What is a jot? What is a tittle? | GotQuestions.org

We know from Textual Criticism the text of the Hebrew Bible has not lost anything from the Torah.

Does the Bible contradict itself? : A discussion of alleged contradictions in the Bible / by W. Arnd
Arndt, William

Daniel Marsh said:

Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jot here refers to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

"A jot is the name of the least letter of an alphabet or the smallest part of a piece of writing." https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/jot-or-tittle.html#:~:text=This, in turn, was derived,of the square Hebrew alphabet.&text=Apart from its specialist typographical,we 'jot it down'.

What is a jot? What is a tittle? | GotQuestions.org

We know from Textual Criticism the text of the Hebrew Bible has not lost anything from the Torah.

Click to expand...

Here Jesus explains what he meant in Matthew 5:17-18

Luke 24:44 NIV
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Daniel Marsh said:

Does the Bible contradict itself? : A discussion of alleged contradictions in the Bible / by W. Arnd
Arndt, William

Click to expand...

No, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. If that's what William Arndt says, he doesn't understand what the Bible is: a collection of 66 separate works, written by different authors at different times under different circumstances.

If one has clear understanding there are zero contradictions in the Bible. Zero!

pescador said:

No, the Bible doesn't contradict itself. If that's what William Arndt says, he doesn't understand what the Bible is: a collection of 66 separate works, written by different authors at different times under different circumstances.

If one has clear understanding there are zero contradictions in the Bible. Zero!

Click to expand...

It's interesting the way you are stating this. It almost sounds like you are supporting inerrancy, but you aren't. Here's what you said earlier. How do you balance all this?

pescador said:

The gospel was originally spoken, not written. There was no mass media to report the news; information about Jesus was spread orally by the apostles and others. There were several versions of the story of His time on earth and all of them are believable. They are not "accurate" in terms of modern journalism, but they present the full story of Jesus life more completely than would have happened if there was modern "factual" reporting.

Click to expand...

pescador said:

I was born in 1943 in New York. I am 77 years old and was born in New York City. I am in my late seventies and was born in the Northeast United States.

Which of these statements is untrue? After all, none of them say exactly the same thing.

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

It's interesting the way you are stating this. It almost sounds like you are supporting inerrancy, but you aren't. Here's what you said earlier. How do you balance all this?

Click to expand...

If one reads the Bible, especially the Gospels, as though s/he is reading the newspaper, then there are bound to be problems. The authors were not reporters in the modern sense. They were writing what they felt was important to convey the life and truths of Jesus Christ. For example, it's reported that Jesus went to the temple at two separate "conflicting" times. Have a look at Matthew 21 (His final entry into Jerusalem) and John 2 (shortly after the wedding in Cana). Did He enter the temple twice to overturn the moneychangers' tables, or was it written to teach us regardless of "correct" chronology?

The Bible is inerrant in reporting and explaining God's truths, but the emphasis in on our understanding of those truths. You might benefit from reading Peter Enns ("The Bible Tells Me So") and/or E. Randolph Richards ("Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes").

pescador said:

... For example, it's reported that Jesus went to the temple at two separate "conflicting" times. Have a look at Matthew 21 (His final entry into Jerusalem) and John 2 (shortly after the wedding in Cana). Did He enter the temple twice to overturn the moneychangers' tables, or was it written to teach us regardless of "correct" chronology?

Click to expand...

There. That's good. Thanks.
Some would understand that as a contradiction, and a glitch in inerrancy. (the facts in error) Which telling of the events was true? (which was false?)

Saint Steven said:

There. That's good. Thanks.
Some would understand that as a contradiction, and a glitch in inerrancy. (the facts in error) Which telling of the events was true? (which was false?)

Click to expand...

Both were true! If you understand that you're well on the way to understanding the meanings of Scripture.

Here's a good introductory video from Peter Enns, author of the book: The Bible Tells Me So.

Guest speaker, Peter Enns, shares the first Keynote lecture of Focus 2017.

Saint Steven said:

Here's a good introductory video from Peter Enns, author of the book: The Bible Tells Me So.

Guest speaker, Peter Enns, shares the first Keynote lecture of Focus 2017.

Click to expand...

His view is more consistent with the what the Bible actually is than the traditional ones. But it requires you to forget, or at least place aside from the moment, what we *want* the Bible to be, and look at what it actually is. That's an approach that is, by definition, critical.

hedrick said:

His view is more consistent with the what the Bible actually is than the traditional ones. But it requires you to forget, or at least place aside from the moment, what we *want* the Bible to be, and look at what it actually is. That's an approach that is, by definition, critical.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Many of us were raised with the idea that you don't point out the "inconsistencies" in the Bible. To do so was considered heretical.

He doesn't spend much time with it, but it is curious to consider what we are telling our children about the Bible. The images that were in the presentation were pretty shocking when you consider what the Bible actually says about those things. Global genocide (the flood) is represented with butterflies and rainbows. Wow.

Saint Steven said:

Yes, I agree. Many of us were raised with the idea that you don't point out the "inconsistencies" in the Bible. To do so was considered heretical.

He doesn't spend much time with it, but it is curious to consider what we are telling our children about the Bible. The images that were in the presentation were pretty shocking when you consider what the Bible actually says about those things. Global genocide (the flood) is represented with butterflies and rainbows. Wow.

Click to expand...

There are no inconsistencies in the Bible; that is the product of our Western minds, which are trained to point out logical inconsistencies.

The Bible has a message that we are to understand, even if it means putting aside our Western, logic-driven (flawed) thinking. People who look for inconsistencies or logic flaws will find them, but they will have missed the message.

pescador said:

There are no inconsistencies in the Bible; that is the product of our Western minds, which are trained to point out logical inconsistencies.

The Bible has a message that we are to understand, even if it means putting aside our Western, logic-driven (flawed) thinking. People who look for inconsistencies or logic flaws will find them, but they will have missed the message.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is why I put "inconsistencies" in quote marks. The authors wrote from their perspective with their purpose and from their cultural understanding.

That being said, I understand the problem of questioning the book which establishes our spiritual life. If it seems we are saying that the Bible is not the rock solid foundation of our faith, then what are we left with? Where do we go from there?

Percivale said:

I believe in inspiration but no longer believe in inerrancy, but I think maybe I should study the topic in more detail. It's not so much objections to the Bible's accuracy that made me doubt inerrancy as the lack of a strong positive case for it, and the way Jesus disagreed with parts of the Old Testament. Also there is no inspired list of what books belong in the Bible, most books of the Bible don't claim to be the word of God, God could easily have given a more systematic and proven revelation (Jesus could have written some scripture for instance), and insisting on inerrancy seems to cause the church to spend more time fighting over controversial details and less time on the most important teachings of Jesus.
I'd appreciate some quality book and article recommendations from both sides of the issue.

Click to expand...

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. --Matthew 22:29

(Jesus would not have made this statement were He not expecting and requiring that we follow the Scriptures.)
We have the many passages which state the Scriptures are the Word of the Lord . Faith enters into our hearts and in love and prayer we follow what is given us in the Scriptures.

TheDisaffected said:

I second the suggestion for Peter Enns book. I found his approach frustrating in some places and wish “The Bible Tells Me So” had better notes and references, but I don’t think there’s a better book that puts forward the position that the Bible IS authoritative Scripture but NOT (and not meant to be) perfectly inerrant and consistent.

Personally, I find that the issue of inerrancy doesn’t matter nearly as much as it seems. After all, we don’t demand inerrant, flawless sources in order to learn about and act on anything else in our lives. A source can be reliable and authoritative without having to be inerrant.

Click to expand...

1) I really like Peter Enns' writing.

2) We have been given the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth. John 16:13, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come."

We use our minds to read and interpret Scripture, but our minds have been conditioned by family, society, and education to think a certain way. If we try to apply the sacred cow of our "logic" to the Bible then we will come up with all kinds of interpretations, depending on the above.

Although I participate regularly in forum discussions I don't put too much stock in what is said. The times when I feel closest to God are a) when I read the Bible (without trying to "mine it" to prove a point) and b) when I pray, especially praying "in tongues" (a.k.a praying in the Spirit).

I firmly believe that the Bible is the Word of God (in written form), not to be confused with Jesus, the Word made flesh. It is both inspired and inerrant, even if we don't clearly understand (with our minds) what it says.