Is the Bible inerrant?

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

RamiC said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Good thing we have continued presence of the Holy Spirit.

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

fhansen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Fervent said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Fervent said:

Good thing we have continued presence of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that can often mean being led from our present postions into deeper and more correct truths. Meanwhile many claim inspiration from the HS for wherever they happen to be theologically at any point in time, while others claim the same while holding opposing views.

Fervent said:

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

Click to expand...

Just a good point to realize IMO: inerrant text wouldn't guarantee inerrant interpreters.

Fervent said:

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

Click to expand...

And without the input of historic Christian teachings we're still spinning them, as I've come to view the matter.

fhansen said:

Amdf yet wer talking about superantural truths here, crucil ones, and peopleseek tcertainty 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.

Click to expand...

"Heresy"? Nope, heresy is a denial of a central aspect of God's nature.

fhansen said:

Yes, and that can often mean being led from our ent postions into deeper and more correct truth. Meanwhile many claim inspiration from the HS for wherever they happen to be theologically at any point in time.

Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with other people's claims.

fhansen said:

Just a good point to realize IMO-: inerrant text wouldn't guarantee inerrant interpreters.

Click to expand...

Sure, its not your point that I find objectionable but your chosen solution.

fhansen said:

And without the input of historic Christian teachings we're still spinning them, as I've come to view the matter.

Click to expand...

Sure, but we're all interpreting those too. So tradition doesn't stave off error anymore than an inerrant text does.

Fervent said:

"Heresy"? Nope, heresy is a denial of a central aspect of God's nature.

Click to expand...

Most just define it as a denial of orthodox beliefs.

Fervent said:

I'm not concerned with other people's claims.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It's just a pattern I see repeated that might serve to give us pause in thinking it's just about me, the bible, and God. OTOH, I do appreciate it when we find commoin ground in any case-but I tend to think that the histoical witness of those who came before us plays a bigger role in the understanding of many of us than we may give it credit for.

Fervent said:

Sure, its not your point that I find objectionable but your chosen solution.

Click to expand...

I know.

Fervent said:

Sure, but we're all interpreting those too. So tradition doesn't stave off error anymore than an inerrant text does.

Click to expand...

It certainly has a greater advantage that just me and the text alone, I mean to say that the belief and practices of the early church in the east and west as reported by the early fathers, for example, have a better chance of conveying the faith as it was orginally received than a person just reading the bible some 1500-2000 years later.

Reluctant Theologian said:

The majority of Biblical scholars don't think 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter (it seems to be a pseudo-graph). Nevertheless it contains truth - this particular line as well. IMHO all it says in 2 Peter 1:20-21 is that prophets spoke from God carried along by the Holy Spirit - and the report of their words are found in the TNK/OT writings. True prophecy never originates or is even influenced by human will, a prophet is supposed to literally speak on behalf of God.

And thankfully we still have those prophecy books in the TNK/OT - in Hebrew, we still have the LXX (Greek) translation of those prophets - as this translation was used a lot by the believers in the NT era (50% of the NT TNK/OT quotes are from the LXX translation) - but beware; there are still differences between the best known Hebrew text and the best known Greek text of the TNK/OT.

Taking your King James Bible and declaring that translation from cover to cover is the literal and infallible word of God verbatim is very comforting but an extreme simplification of matters and thus does not reflect reality.

I don't think the Apostle Peter when he wrote the letter 1 Peter considered himself writing an infallible document that would carry the exact same weight as a prophet speaking the words of God verbatim. But I do attribute great weight to Peter's words as a designated Apostle by Yeshua Himself, clearly guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. To be honest, 1 Peter is one of my favourite NT books.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this, what does TNK stand for, please?

2PhiloVoid said:

Because of comments about 2 Peter were made above by @Reluctant Theologian, I'm citing the following article on 2 Peter here for your benefit so you have at least some further reference point as to why 2 Peter has a history of debate over its origins and/or authenticity.

Just keep in mind that there is a difference between being a 'disputed' letter or book of the New Testament versus one that is assigned a firm 'pseudo' status. This way, you don't have to jump up and run around the living room worried that you've found out something you didn't know, sister CC. The truth is, no one actually knows for sure how 2 Peter was written. More than likely, Peter wasn't literate and needed the help of secretaries [called amanuenses] when he was alive. (Yeah, they had those back then for the many people who couldn't read or write--which was most people back then.) Keep that in mind, Sister CC....................

How 2 Peter Made It into the Bible

The story of how the most doubted book in the New Testament was recognized as canonical

textandcanon.org

Click to expand...

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

RamiC said:

Could the guest speakers have been trying to sell other versions of the Bible? If some people at your church might have bought one, that is fine activity, but you do not need to let it prevent you from just using the best one for you.

NIV Bible - New International Version - they have a fine looking website there, with a blog that looks especially helpful for articles about application to life.

What is the New International Version (NIV)? | GotQuestions.org - and here is Got Questions? website on the NIV.

This is an easy summary of different translation styles:

• Formal Translation: A very word-for-word translation that often uses formal, more archaic language (example: the King James Version or NASB);
• Dynamic Translation: A thought-for-thought translation (example: NIV or NLT);
• Paraphrase Translation: An idea-for-idea translation that involves much more interpretation from the translator (example: The Message);

from here.

NIV is a Dynamic translation, so it is formed in English to blend easy readability with what the original languages said. Here is the NIV websites' own answer about which original texts were used "The translators of the NIV have used the Old Testament and New Testament texts that are widely accepted among modern scholars as giving the committee the best possible access to what God inspired in the original documents.

For the Old Testament the Masoretic Text, the standard Hebrew text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The NIV translators have sometimes used variants of the Hebrew Masoretic tradition or other ancient versions, where these seemed to provide a superior text than the Masoretic tradition. These are all noted in the NIV translator footnotes that appear at the bottom of the page of the text that they reference.

For the New Testament, the translators have used the accepted Greek New Testament text as printed in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testaments. Here also the translators have occasionally accepted a variant printed in these editions. Footnotes usually indicate the options in each case."

Click to expand...

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.

Reluctant Theologian said:

Taking your King James Bible and declaring that translation from cover to cover is the literal and infallible word of God verbatim is very comforting but an extreme simplification of matters and thus does not reflect reality.

Click to expand...

You will, I assume, be pleased to find out that no one in this thread is arguing that the KJV is the literal and infallible anything. ChubbyCherub is not guilty.

Plus CF Rules include "Promotion of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO) or King James Bible Only is not allowed. Stating one has a preference for King James Version is fine. Tying salvation to what version is used will be seen as flaming." Terms and rules

fhansen said:

Most just define it as a denial of orthodox beliefs.

Click to expand...

"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.

fhansen said:

Fair enough. It's just a pattern I see repeated that might serve to give us pause in thinking it's just about me, the bible, and God. OTOH, I do appreciate it when we find commoin ground in any case-but I tend to think that the histoical witness of those who came before us plays a bigger role in the understanding of many of us than we may give it credit for.

Click to expand...

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.

fhansen said:

I know.

Click to expand...

Ok

fhansen said:

It certainly has a greater advantage that just me and the text alone, I mean to say that the belief and practices of the early church in the east and west as reported by the early fathers, for example, have a better chance of conveying the faith as it was orginally received than a person just reading the bible some 1500-2000 years later.

Click to expand...

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

ChubbyCherub said:

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.

Click to expand...

What are your reservations about the NIV?