Inerrant

[mukk_in]

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

All scripture is God-breathed

As inerrant as the word of God is, an incorrect or incomplete interpretation of it could be fatal. The word of God is full of checks and balances. Faith without love becomes fanaticism, while love without holiness becomes lasciviousness. Let's look at some biblical examples where saints in the past either incorrectly or incompletely interpreted the word of God.

Let's start with Abraham and God's call to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:2). Abraham, who was originally Abram, came from a pagan culture where child sacrifice was common. Although God was testing Abraham's faith, He was also purifying it. God intended for Abraham to obey, while Abraham intended to go through with the sacrifice, per his pagan upbringing.

When Satan tempted the Lord to jump off the temple (Luke 4:9-10), he was only partly correct. But Satan intended for Christ to tempt God the Father and the Lord firmly rebuked Satan (Luke 4:12). Many literally handle snakes and drink poison today, misinterpreting Mark 16:18 and ending up in ER. If God puts us in harm's way as He did with Paul on Malta (Acts 28:3), He'll deliver us.

Finally, even the great Apostles can give wrong advice occasionally. In 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul advises Timothy to drink some wine because of his stomach ailments. That was terrible advice. Timothy was obviously suffering from gastroenteritis. Since they didn't have antibiotics back then, Paul should have advised Timothy to boil the water, cool and filter it before drinking it. Research tells us that alcohol worsens gastritis and accelerates the growth of gut bacteria, worsening gastroenteritis.

As you can see, saints, the entire word of God is inerrant. But how we interpret it can be erroneous.

Have a good week.

 

[dqhall]

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

All scripture is God-breathed

As inerrant as the word of God is, an incorrect or incomplete interpretation of it could be fatal. The word of God is full of checks and balances. Faith without love becomes fanaticism, while love without holiness becomes lasciviousness. Let's look at some biblical examples where saints in the past either incorrectly or incompletely interpreted the word of God.

Let's start with Abraham and God's call to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:2). Abraham, who was originally Abram, came from a pagan culture where child sacrifice was common. Although God was testing Abraham's faith, He was also purifying it. God intended for Abraham to obey, while Abraham intended to go through with the sacrifice, per his pagan upbringing.

When Satan tempted the Lord to jump off the temple (Luke 4:9-10), he was only partly correct. But Satan intended for Christ to tempt God the Father and the Lord firmly rebuked Satan (Luke 4:12). Many literally handle snakes and drink poison today, misinterpreting Mark 16:18 and ending up in ER. If God puts us in harm's way as He did with Paul on Malta (Acts 28:3), He'll deliver us.

Finally, even the great Apostles can give wrong advice occasionally. In 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul advises Timothy to drink some wine because of his stomach ailments. That was terrible advice. Timothy was obviously suffering from gastroenteritis. Since they didn't have antibiotics back then, Paul should have advised Timothy to boil the water, cool and filter it before drinking it. Research tells us that alcohol worsens gastritis and accelerates the growth of gut bacteria, worsening gastroenteritis.

As you can see, saints, the entire word of God is inerrant. But how we interpret it can be erroneous.

Have a good week.

God is the way, the truth and the light. Even a little alcohol increases the risk of cancer. Paul’s word is not 100% truth, even though he is read for his knowledge of Christ.

After the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran c. 1947, scholars began to compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to the OT Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic texts. They found scribal errors happened. God does not err. The Bible was copied by scribes.
The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls

 

[Mark Quayle]

2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)

All scripture is God-breathed

As inerrant as the word of God is, an incorrect or incomplete interpretation of it could be fatal. The word of God is full of checks and balances. Faith without love becomes fanaticism, while love without holiness becomes lasciviousness. Let's look at some biblical examples where saints in the past either incorrectly or incompletely interpreted the word of God.

Let's start with Abraham and God's call to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:2). Abraham, who was originally Abram, came from a pagan culture where child sacrifice was common. Although God was testing Abraham's faith, He was also purifying it. God intended for Abraham to obey, while Abraham intended to go through with the sacrifice, per his pagan upbringing.

When Satan tempted the Lord to jump off the temple (Luke 4:9-10), he was only partly correct. But Satan intended for Christ to tempt God the Father and the Lord firmly rebuked Satan (Luke 4:12). Many literally handle snakes and drink poison today, misinterpreting Mark 16:18 and ending up in ER. If God puts us in harm's way as He did with Paul on Malta (Acts 28:3), He'll deliver us.

Finally, even the great Apostles can give wrong advice occasionally. In 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul advises Timothy to drink some wine because of his stomach ailments. That was terrible advice. Timothy was obviously suffering from gastroenteritis. Since they didn't have antibiotics back then, Paul should have advised Timothy to boil the water, cool and filter it before drinking it. Research tells us that alcohol worsens gastritis and accelerates the growth of gut bacteria, worsening gastroenteritis.

As you can see, saints, the entire word of God is inerrant. But how we interpret it can be erroneous.

Have a good week.

What makes you think Timothy "obviously" had gastroenteritis?

 

[mukk_in]

What makes you think Timothy "obviously" had gastroenteritis?

"frequent stomach ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23).

 

[Mark Quayle]

"frequent stomach ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23).

What version says, "frequent stomach ailments"?

Literal Standard Version: "because of your stomach and of your frequent sicknesses"
—could be all sorts of things. Not so obviously gastroenteritis.

But what bothers me is not this relatively minor detail, but that you draw a principle on it. My point here is not even to disagree with the principle you draw, but on the method by which you draw it. Your method is eisegesis. The principle drawn is therefore highly suspect.

 

[public hermit]

Already, inerrantism is revealed to be an illusion. Y'all are disagreeing over Timothy's illness, but isn't it all just obvious since it's in the Bible?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Already, inerrantism is revealed to be an illusion. Y'all are disagreeing over Timothy's illness, but isn't it all just obvious since it's in the Bible?

Isn't WHAT "all just obvious since it's in the Bible"?

What is your point —that everything in the Bible should be obvious?

 

[public hermit]

Isn't WHAT "all just obvious since it's in the Bible"?

What is your point —that everything in the Bible should be obvious?

What's the point of assuming inerrancy if y'all can't agree over something as simple as Timothy's illness? Biblical inerrancy is a concept without a referent. It's a fundamentalist's pipe dream.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What's the point of assuming inerrancy if y'all can't agree over something as simple as Timothy's illness? Biblical inerrancy is a concept without a referent. It's a fundamentalist's pipe dream.

Sorry, I don't even understand what you're saying.

Truth is, I think I tend to agree with the point @mukk_in was trying to make. But I didn't like the way he was making it, like he had the authority to claim things he could not know about something said in Scripture, and to use that to draw conclusions. That's not how exegesis works.

I believe the Bible is altogether true, though obviously some things can't mean what they may sound like at first reading. We aren't idiots, and the Bible is not a scientific manual. It is written in human language, though the very words in it (I believe) were directed by God. But there are very few places where it sounds like the writer may have been in some kind of trance, putting God's words down on the scroll without even looking or something.

To me, 'taking the Bible literally' means believing what it says; it doesn't mean, be a superstitious fool. If Ezekiel saw a wheel within a wheel, then that is the only reasonable way he could describe it. So, yes, he saw a wheel within a wheel, or whatever the Hebrew means there, but I'm not going to decide, since it is literal, that I know what he saw.

Your statement seems more odd to me the more I think about it. Since when have two lawyers who take the law literally agreed on what it means? Do not avid students of Shakespearean poetry and plays disagree? (Ha! Are you saying there are Congressional Members who think the Constitution is symbolic???)

 

[public hermit]

Sorry, I don't even understand what you're saying.

Let me clarify. The idea that the scriptures are inerrant but how we interpret them can be erroneous is nonsense. That's an assumption that could never be shown to be true since there is no way to understand the scriptures except by interpreting them. It's simply an assertion. And, it's an assertion that even the scriptures do not make.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Which translation is inerrant ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me clarify. The idea that the scriptures are inerrant but how we interpret them can be erroneous is nonsense. That's an assumption that could never be shown to be true since there is no way to understand the scriptures except by interpreting them. It's simply an assertion. And, it's an assertion that even the scriptures do not make.

I disagree. How is 'inerrant' even in the translation (which I don't agree with, but just for the sake of argument...) —how does inerrant mean perfect transmission of information, or whatever you think it is inerrant should do here? Without error could even possibly mean intended to teach some, and intended to mislead others, nevermind that inerrant word doesn't at all imply that humans should be able to understand it.