Inerrancy

[Catherineanne]

Personally I believe in the inerrancy of the bible, so 6 literal days of creation is not a hard thing to swallow considering the omnipotence of god.

Is there not Scripture to say that a thousand years is as one day to God?

I would say, therefore, that when listening to the Deity describe how long it took him to create the world, it is reasonable to assume that he will talk in measures of time for which poor Moses had no words, and had to end up using the word 'day'.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God described to Moses six periods of creation, the actual timing of which are beyond human comprehension even today. Or, if you chose to think they were days, then I have no problem with that. The Bible says it, and if anyone chooses to believe it, I can understand why they would do so.

The question still remains, why believe the Bible is inerrant, when it does not anywhere claim to be?

It has been said that it is impolite to call this 'patent nonsense', and perhaps it is. But when whole denominations of Christians base their faith on this tenet, which is itself unScriptural, then I think nonsense is a mild word to use.

Christ is the foundation stone, the Alpha and the Omega, who is, and was and is to come. He alone is perfect and infallible, inerrant and omnipotent.

Not the Bible.

 

[Catherineanne]

However, I choose to believe that the Bible, in its original manuscripts was totally without error. I base this on a variety of reasons.

#1 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" - 2 Tim. 3:16

Timothy refers to OT scriptures here, because the NT did not exist at this time. But even assuming, as is perhaps reasonable, that God intends Timothy's words to apply retrospectively to the rest of the canon, four centuries later, it still remains that we have the word 'inspired', and not the word 'dictated' or 'perfect'. Either the Holy Spirit was not specific enough or else this is for good reason.

Inspired means 'breathed into', as Adam was breathed into by God to give him life. But Adam was not perfect, and neither is Scripture.

If God cannot "inspire" something that is totally correct then He would have to be a liar.

In your theology perhaps. Not in mine. See note relating to Adam above. And look around at the world, which God said was good, and patently at times falls below that standard. Does this too make God a liar?

#2 It has been proven that there has been a high degree of reliability in the the transmission through history of scripture by the discovery and comparsion of ancient manuscripts. I have also heard that we have far fewer copies of other ancient documents and still we regard their transmission/copying as basically accurate.

This is not about manuscripts or transmission. This is about whether the Bible is perfect. It does not say so, so why is it reasonable to believe it?

#3 God proves He is concerned about accuracy of the scriptures by warning judgment on those who knowingly alter it (ie. Revelation 22:19). See also Matt. 5:18.

The warning in Revelation applies only to Revelation. But even if, as with Timothy, we allow for retrospective application to the whole canon, clearly there is more than one version of Scripture, more than one translation, and more than one language, so God would appear to be very tolerant indeed of diversity in this respect. As indeed is the church.

What if, however, I were to claim this part of Revelation as a warning against calling the Bible perfect? If the Bible does not say that it is perfect, is there not a warning and a judgement on those who knowingly alter the words of Scripture and say that it is? And is this warning not compatible with the first commandment, and with the warning against raising false idols?

#4 The Bible is self-proving to someone who wants to seriously search it out because of the combination of words and teachings written over hundreds of years (by people who did not directly know each other) which all echo a common theme.

If this is true, then the Torah, the Koran and the Hindu writings are all self proving too. Ergo, this does not hold water.

 

[Catherineanne]

Innereancy? Which Bible. The one today's western Christians use? Based on which manuscripts?

The one the Coptic Christian churches use (different books than the westernBible) ?

The one Syrian Christians use (different books also.)

Now, if even one error in the textual transmission is found, the whole inerrancy thing falls apart.

It is no comfort to say the 'the originals were inerrant' because we don't have them with us.

Neither is there Scripture to say, the original manuscripts of Scripture were inerrant. Not a sausage. Not a dickeybird.

 

[Catherineanne]

If your salvation is not based on what the bible says then the bible has little use for you. If your salvation is based on what is written, then what is written better be accurate, right?

My salvation is founded on Christ, and him alone.

The Bible is not Christ, and can be as inaccurate as it likes, just as any other book. It is Christ who is perfect, and it is he who holds my salvation in his hands.

Basing faith on the Bible is equivalent to building a house on sand. It becomes essential to never admit error, never admit inaccuracy, lest the whole house of your faith fall down. This is the predicament of many Christians today, terrified of the uncertainty of fallibility. Terrified to admit imperfection in themselves, their Bible or their faith. Terrified of reality.

Far better to follow the words of Christ himself, and build on the rock, who can never fall down, and who can face reality and sanctify it by his presence.

 

[MrdeRastignac]

My salvation is founded on Christ, and him alone.

The Bible is not Christ, and can be as inaccurate as it likes, just as any other book. It is Christ who is perfect, and it is he who holds my salvation in his hands.

Basing faith on the Bible is equivalent to building a house on sand. It becomes essential to never admit error, never admit inaccuracy, lest the whole house of your faith fall down. This is the predicament of many Christians today, terrified of the uncertainty of fallibility. Terrified to admit imperfection in themselves, their Bible or their faith. Terrified of reality.

Far better to follow the words of Christ himself, and build on the rock, who can never fall down, and who can face reality and sanctify it by his presence.

I agree to some extent. In this thread one starts again with the Bible vs. Science arguments! As a scientist (well something like that; I hate that word) I don't see that much problems with science and the bible.
Yes, the age of the earth (or man) would be not conform science, but then science isn't an absolute science as put forward by some of you and above all God created the laws of nature which doesn't mean He has to abide by them (referring to the sun that stood still above Jerusalem, might be symbolic, but doesn't have to be). The things he created didn't become more powerful than He was and still is. Given the doubts there are about evolution and the likes, I would say that would take just as much faith to believe in than in our God and His creation.

E.g. if dinosaurs are extinct for million of years, how can Jewish versions of the Bible seem to point at Dinosaur-like creatures instead of 'our' whale in Genesis and how can there be a possible mentioning of them in the book of Job.

However, when I continued to closely read the Bible I read some things that were far more challenging to me; possible contradictions within the text. The latest example of that is how I read in some versions of the Bible that when Saul was going to a 'witch' to summon Samuel, Samuel said to Saul: Tomorrow you'll be with me in the realms of the dead (Sheol) (from 1 Samuel 28: 7-20). There would be an explanation if it weren't for the 'with me' part.
Later on I also read in other books and one of the Prophets (Isaiah 38: 16-18 ) this extremely different notion of the afterlife as is presented in the 'newer' books of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

What I even found more disturbing was the fact that some Bibles leave this 'realm of the dead' word out of it, hence it looked like it had to be concealed.

However, although this troubled me I found that it didn't affect my faith. My faith is still the same, as especially put forward by Paul.
Translation mistakes, cultural interpretations and changes when Israel didn't believe in the Afterlife etc.. I don't really care what caused these strange things, what I do know is that I still believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible through the Holy Spirit. The message is still the one and only Truth.

 

[calidog]

My head hurts.


He'd be a prankster God, seeking to trick and decieve man. This can't be a God who claims to be truth, love and justice.

If God wanted Himself proven scientifically, He could have very easily done it that way. I find Him to be extremely wise.

What do you suppose this means?


Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

 

[calidog]

My salvation is founded on Christ, and him alone.

The Bible is not Christ, and can be as inaccurate as it likes, just as any other book. It is Christ who is perfect, and it is he who holds my salvation in his hands.

Basing faith on the Bible is equivalent to building a house on sand. It becomes essential to never admit error, never admit inaccuracy, lest the whole house of your faith fall down. This is the predicament of many Christians today, terrified of the uncertainty of fallibility. Terrified to admit imperfection in themselves, their Bible or their faith. Terrified of reality.

Far better to follow the words of Christ himself, and build on the rock, who can never fall down, and who can face reality and sanctify it by his presence.

And where do you find His words and do you trust them to be recorded accurately?

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Evetnually, those who hold to inerrancy, when confronted with the variations in manuscripts (e.g. between the Masoretic texts of the OT and those found in the Dead Sea caves) will admit that there are very minor differences in the texts.

That admission blows the whole concept of inerrancy out of the water. Unless they take the safe way out and qualify that by saying 'the original manuscripts were inerrant.' Safe because we don't have the originals to critique.

 

[ContentInHim]

Indeed he is, if he chose to do so. There are many things which God is capable of doing, which he refrains from doing, out of love and mercy to us all.

But the Bible does not say that God dictated the Bible and made it perfect. For good reason; if he had said such a thing, we would have plated the Bible in gold and bowed down to it. As indeed many do today.

So, in the absence of such an affirmation, why does anyone believe it?

You do not believe that God affirms his scripture; I believe that he does affirm his scripture. Therefore your last sentence has absolutely no value or meaning for me.

 

[elsbeth]

The Bible itself does not say that the Bible is innerrant. The scriptures that are quoted simply do not say that.

 

[calidog]

If it is trustworthy then it should do what it was given to us to do:


Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


If one is looking for copiest errors, hopefully it will nevertheless have Gods desired effect.

 

[Catherineanne]

The message is still the one and only Truth.

Consider that I send you a letter, and I write the truth in that letter. The letter itself is not Truth, neither is it the message. The message is the content of what I send to you. The letter is the medium; it is itself morally neutral, and is made of only paper and ink. It contains truth but it is not truth.

Same with Scripture. It can contain truth but it is not truth itself. It is God who is Truth.

By confusing the two, some Christians fall into the trap of confusing the Bible with God, which is, for many of us, idolatry; raising that which is created to the status of the Creator and ascribing characteristics which belong to God alone to part of his creation.

There are a thousand warnings throughout the Scriptures against such behaviour.

So, I ask again. Why do it?

 

[Catherineanne]

And where do you find His words and do you trust them to be recorded accurately?

Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

I test the words against Christ, rather than the other way round. And I find Christ in Scripture, in my church, in those I encounter every day, and in my heart.

I also find much in the Bible that contradicts God in Christ, and those bits I measure against Christ, and I find them wanting.

It is Christ who is the benchmark against which to measure Scripture, not the other way round.

 

[Catherineanne]

Evetnually, those who hold to inerrancy, when confronted with the variations in manuscripts (e.g. between the Masoretic texts of the OT and those found in the Dead Sea caves) will admit that there are very minor differences in the texts.

This is right. Anyone forced to live their lives in this kind of blackout, not admitting any error whatever, will find the slightest chink will allow light to come flooding in.

There are discrepancies of detail everywhere. There are two creation stories, not just one, and they are contradictory. There are two different routes from Egypt to the Chosen Land. Even in the Gospels, either Christ was crucified on a Thursday or a Friday, but it cannot be both. Either he first appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem or in Galilee, again it cannot be both. There are many such. To deny that they are there requires a level of doublethink which causes the minds of some Christians to be bonsaied to a quite frightening extent, and has to constrain the effectiveness of their witness when so much evidence is against them, and so much of their energy is expended on maintaining their own denial.

In order not to end on such a negative note, the simple answer that the church has understood for two millenia now is to accept that such contradictions do not compromise our faith, because the Bible was never intended as a factual history, and that, in fact, all that it contains points us to God and contains truth. But it is not itself Truth, never was, never will be.

It is a modern, and fallacious, belief in inerrancy and perfection of the Bible which creates today's false gospel, which is not Scriptural, and is nowhere sanctioned by Moses, Christ, Paul, or anyone else.

 

[Catherineanne]

You do not believe that God affirms his scripture; I believe that he does affirm his scripture. Therefore your last sentence has absolutely no value or meaning for me.

What do you mean by affirm? And what Scripture do you base this affirmation on?

I don't give a tinker's what of mine has value or meaning to you. I am asking about the Bible.

Where is it in Scripture that the Bible is inerrant? If it is not in Scripture, why should anyone believe it?

It is a simple enough question.

 

[Catherineanne]

The Bible itself does not say that the Bible is innerrant. The scriptures that are quoted simply do not say that.

Quite right.

 

[MrdeRastignac]

Consider that I send you a letter, and I write the truth in that letter. The letter itself is not Truth, neither is it the message. The message is the content of what I send to you. The letter is the medium; it is itself morally neutral, and is made of only paper and ink. It contains truth but it is not truth.

Same with Scripture. It can contain truth but it is not truth itself. It is God who is Truth.

By confusing the two, some Christians fall into the trap of confusing the Bible with God, which is, for many of us, idolatry; raising that which is created to the status of the Creator and ascribing characteristics which belong to God alone to part of his creation.

There are a thousand warnings throughout the Scriptures against such behaviour.

So, I ask again. Why do it?

Example 1:
In the letter I write to my mother I make a mistake and I write down a wrong birthdate instead of my real one. The text itself has a mistake in it, but my mother knows what it reads/should read/should have read. Her interpretation of the text makes it a message, not the letters themselves, they are dead.

Example 2:
I write a letter in French. A lot of Americans might not understand what I wrote, or read something else in it. Though those who know me and know I wrote in French get the message.

Example 3:
I'm in some terrible jail and I want to let my friends know where exactly I am. I write a superficial message, though in it (by making spelling mistakes, or through use of the 1st letters of every word) I write my location.
The message for my friends would be that location, not the superficial text.

Hence, in all 3 examples through (the spirit of) me the message can be obtained, although I'm not able to make no mistakes at all from birth to death.
In the Bible the message can be obtained through God, through His Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean the text/letters have to be flawless.
Contrary to me, God isn't able to make mistakes, and as such the message obtained through His Holy Spirit is The message and the Truth.

The only issue there is; when/how do you know your following the path of the Holy Spirit. Though that in itself doesn't change the inerrancy of the message.

BTW, I never said God=Bible, that's not even the point here.

 

[Nachtjager]

As a writer and editor for an international publishing company, once I began studying the Bible and engaging in theology and textual criticism, it's obvious there are plenty of mistakes, omissions, additions, corrections, and a host of other "problems" that exist with our current translations of the Bible. The Moody Institute "inerrant" unquestioning blind acceptance of things which are obviously problematic is not doing God's will any good.

I do believe, I search daily for a better understanding and relationship with Christ, but I am not going to say the Bible is an absolutely perfect book - it's simply not. If it were, there would be no confusion among believers or disputes over doctrine and principles of salvation.

As for the early post wanting some mistakes, do a google search, there are so many contraditions within our current translations it would take six pages to cover them all here.

Take care all and God bless!

 

[ContentInHim]

What do you mean by affirm? And what Scripture do you base this affirmation on?

I don't give a tinker's what of mine has value or meaning to you. I am asking about the Bible.

Where is it in Scripture that the Bible is inerrant? If it is not in Scripture, why should anyone believe it?

It is a simple enough question.

Because I have faith that God has protected his meaning in the Bible. I get that faith from the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible. The faith grows as I find answers to questions I have in a book I've read innumerable times through but which has new stuff in it each time I read it.

I can also trust the Bible since the apostles studied and believed what we call the Old Testament. Paul goes so far as to say you can be saved by reading and believing scriptures. I believe it because that's how I was saved. Paul also says in 2 Titus 3:14 -

[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, [15] and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, [17] so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

You don't have that faith in the Bible. It's that simple!

 

[artybloke]

a) You mean 2 Timothy, not Titus.

b) he never defines exactly what he means by the Holy Scriptures. Does it for instance include the Apocrypha, and if not why not?

c) He seems to be talking to people who know the OT. So it seems to be written to a Jewish community, not the increasingly goy community the church rapidly became. If you're not brought up with the Hebrew scriptures, as the non-Jewish believers were not, how does that affect that passage?