Is the Bible inerrant?

9Rock9 · Sunday at 8:29 AM

So, do you think the Bible is completely without error in everything it touches on?

I do believe the Bible is infallible, but idk if I would go to say that it is entirely without error on matters of history, details, etc. The point is to point people to Christ. It's not meant to be a collection of raw information to mine through.

I do think Scripture is God breathed, but unsure whether I lean towards verbal plenary inspiration or dynamic inspiration.

What about you?

eleos1954 · Sunday at 11:50 AM

Romans 15:4 Paul wrote that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us” and in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” Everything and all are words that support the doctrine of plenary inspiration.

verbal plenary inspiration view, asserts that the Bible is inspired word-for-word and is completely true, while also acknowledging that God worked through the personalities of the human writers. This is different from dynamic inspiration, where only the general ideas or concepts are considered inspired, and the human author expresses them in their own words and style.

Support of the verbal plenary view ...

2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work".
- This verse is central to the doctrine because the term "God-breathed" (
  theopneustost h e o p n e u s t o s
  ) implies that the very words of Scripture come directly from God.
2 Peter 1:21: "For prophecy never had its origin in the human will. But people spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".
- This passage explains the "how" of inspiration, suggesting the Holy Spirit guided the human authors, using their personalities and abilities to write God's message.
Matthew 5:18: Jesus states, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter, will by any means pass from the Law until all has been accomplished".
- This emphasizes the permanence and accuracy of the smallest parts of God's Law, supporting the idea that every word matters and is reliable.

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away".
- This reinforces the absolute and enduring truth of Jesus's words, extending the concept of divine inspiration and preservation to all of Scripture.

1 Corinthians 2:13: Paul writes, "...we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual truths to spiritual people".
- This passage is often used to show that the specific words, not just the ideas, were divinely provided by the Holy Spirit.

Delvianna · Sunday at 7:06 PM

9Rock9 said:
So, do you think the Bible is completely without error in everything it touches on?

I do believe the Bible is infallible, but idk if I would go to say that it is entirely without error on matters of history, details, etc. The point is to point people to Christ. It's not meant to be a collection of raw information to mine through.

I do think Scripture is God breathed, but unsure whether I lean towards verbal plenary inspiration or dynamic inspiration.

What about you?

When I read scripture like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I believe that "scripture" is defined as what God said specifically to people to write down. So that, is infallible. But what about the bible? Well, which one? Because there are different bibles that hold books that aren't in others. There are different translations that alter meanings that aren't like the others. I personally have found contradictions between verses in Sirach vs other books that are considered more cannon as well as Enoch too. So I think it's fair to say that in this day an age, you can't just pick up a bible and have faith you're getting the truth without fallacy or problems. So for me personally, after the research I've done, I would say the protestant, NKJV is the one I trust the most and haven't found any fallacy or contradictions but I think it's dangerous to apply an infallibility with every bible in this day and age.

Reluctant Theologian · Sunday at 7:19 PM

9Rock9 said:
So, do you think the Bible is completely without error in everything it touches on?

I do believe the Bible is infallible, but idk if I would go to say that it is entirely without error on matters of history, details, etc. The point is to point people to Christ. It's not meant to be a collection of raw information to mine through.

I do think Scripture is God breathed, but unsure whether I lean towards verbal plenary inspiration or dynamic inspiration.

What about you?

The question needs further detail; are you inquiring about:

the inerrancy of a particular Bible translation?
the inerrancy of the current best-reconstructed text Hebrew + Greek text (e.g. NA28) of both the TNK/OT and NT books? (and what version of the Bible book collection, the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox or the Protestant one? - all with a different number of books)
the inerrancy of particular extant manuscripts?
the inerrancy of the original autographs?

As you might expect I don't believe in the first four (as their is sufficient variation among manuscripts to not be able to comfortably claim/believe in inerrancy; and the Bible itself does not necessitate that) - possibly for the last one (the original autographs) but as we don't have access to these anymore that is impossible to check.

The verses @eleos1954 quoted by themselves are not logical proof that the current Protestant Bible book collection in their current best-reconstructed Hebrew or Greek Text, nor even for the originals, are inerrant. When 2 Timothy and 2 Peter were written the NT didn't even exist yet, so these texts cannot possibly refer to themselves or to the future NT collection; these texts refer to what was regarded scripture in these days: the TNK/OT (but about 50% of the TNK/OT citations in the NT are from the LXX/70 translation which contained the Deuterocanonical books a Protestant Bible now omits). Nowadays there is even scholarly consensus 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Revelation warns against adding/take away from its text, but of course that applies to the book of Revelation - the NT didn't exist yet.

My personal view is very similar to that of the great 20st century CE apologist CS Lewis (Wikipedia): the Bible itself may not be the literal inerrant Word of God, but Christ is .. and we can find the Word of God in and through the Bible. Every word spoken/prophecy directly by God is inerrant of course, but the remaining copy or translation of that after thousands of years may not be inerrant.

My faith is not based on the assumption of inerrancy of a particular manuscript or translation - it's based on the truth of God's revelation through the whole Bible collection as it presents itself - the text is sufficiently reliable to trust the big picture and even smaller details. My Theolology or Christology is not liberal/progressive at all, even Charismatic to some degree - living out my faith in obedience to God is my greatest joy.

It's relatively easy to pinpoint a particular inconsistency in the best manuscripts we have - if your faith depends on inerrancy you would have to jump through hoops of forced readings or fancy interpretations to 'explain' it away. These forced/creative explanations don't really do apologetics a favour when discussing with Atheists, Jews or Muslims.

9Rock9 · Tuesday at 12:40 AM

Reluctant Theologian said:
The question needs further detail; are you inquiring about:

the inerrancy of a particular Bible translation?

the inerrancy of the current best-reconstructed text Hebrew + Greek text (e.g. NA28) of both the TNK/OT and NT books? (and what version of the Bible book collection, the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox or the Protestant one? - all with a different number of books)

the inerrancy of particular extant manuscripts?

the inerrancy of the original autographs?

As you might expect I don't believe in the first four (as their is sufficient variation among manuscripts to not be able to comfortably claim/believe in inerrancy; and the Bible itself does not necessitate that) - possibly for the last one (the original autographs) but as we don't have access to these anymore that is impossible to check.

The verses @eleos1954 quoted by themselves are not logical proof that the current Protestant Bible book collection in their current best-reconstructed Hebrew or Greek Text, nor even for the originals, are inerrant. When 2 Timothy and 2 Peter were written the NT didn't even exist yet, so these texts cannot possibly refer to themselves or to the future NT collection; these texts refer to what was regarded scripture in these days: the TNK/OT (but about 50% of the TNK/OT citations in the NT are from the LXX/70 translation which contained the Deuterocanonical books a Protestant Bible now omits). Nowadays there is even scholarly consensus 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter. Revelation warns against adding/take away from its text, but of course that applies to the book of Revelation - the NT didn't exist yet.

My personal view is very similar to that of the great 20st century CE apologist CS Lewis (Wikipedia): the Bible itself may not be the literal inerrant Word of God, but Christ is .. and we can find the Word of God in and through the Bible. Every word spoken/prophecy directly by God is inerrant of course, but the remaining copy or translation of that after thousands of years may not be inerrant.

My faith is not based on the assumption of inerrancy of a particular manuscript or translation - it's based on the truth of God's revelation through the whole Bible collection as it presents itself - the text is sufficiently reliable to trust the big picture and even smaller details. My Theolology or Christology is not liberal/progressive at all, even Charismatic to some degree - living out my faith in obedience to God is my greatest joy.

It's relatively easy to pinpoint a particular inconsistency in the best manuscripts we have - if your faith depends on inerrancy you would have to jump through hoops of forced readings or fancy interpretations to 'explain' it away. These forced/creative explanations don't really do apologetics a favour when discussing with Atheists, Jews or Muslims.

I think I kinda agree with this.

I no longer accept verbal plenary inspiration, but I do think the Bible is infallible because of dynamic inspiration.

I accept the Bible might not be 100% literally true on matters of science and faith. Not that it contradicts those fields per se, but rather the Bible was written in away the intended audience could understand, and the theological point is often more important than the scientific or historical aspect.

Sabertooth · Tuesday at 2:40 AM

I believe that the Bible is inerrant, but that does not mean its readers are; we are a "work-in-progress."

"For now we see in a mirror, dimly,

but then face to face.

Now I know in part,

but then I shall know just as I also am known." 1 Cor. 13:12 NKJV

"Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be,
but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." 1 John 3:2 NKJV

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,

He will teach you all things,

and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:26 NKJV

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable

for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for instruction in righteousness,

that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Heb. 4:12 NKJV

Servus · Tuesday at 2:55 AM

It seems those who are the most against biblical inerrantcy, are those who belong to denominations that have unbiblical theology, doctrine, practices and traditions.

If they went with biblical inerrantcy and sola scriptura, there's certain stuff they'd have to quit teaching and practicing.

timewerx · Tuesday at 6:16 AM

eleos1954 said:
in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” Everything and all are words that support the doctrine of plenary inspiration.

Context must still be carefully examined.

There were many verses supporting 2 Timothy 3:16 from the Old Testament and a similar teaching exists in Judaism (formerly Pharisee) scriptures as well as other apostolic epistles in the New Testament.

The point is, we find them first in the Old Testament and obviously, the Pharisees taught them as well. It's not surprising that Paul and the other disciples believe in the same thing.

However, we won't find such instances from Christ's own words. Jesus did not instruct His disciples to keep reading the scriptures - when the Spirit of Truth comes, it will be the only guide they'll ever need - John 16:13, John 14:26. You don't even need anyone to teach you as long as you have the Holy Spirit - 1 John 2:27.

The Word of God would not become the scriptures

- The Word was God (John 1:1)
- Became flesh and dwelt among us (Jesus / Holy Spirit) (John 1:14)

For something very central to Christianity like the Bible, why would Jesus not give an instruction to make the Bible, nor even continue reading the scriptures?

Jerry N. · Tuesday at 7:06 AM

If one defines “inerrancy” as being without error, it can only be true for the original texts. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be trusted, and evidence is that very few errors were made by the scribes that copied the texts. If one defines “inerrancy” as without falsehood, not counting when the writers wrote down what lies others told and indicated that they were lies, it is a more important thing. I think that the Bible is true, but not all of the Bible was inspired by God. For example, I Chronicles may have just been written by a diligent scribe. Other Scriptures are prefaced with “God said,...” and should be taken as God’s actual words. Every verse in the Bible does not have equal weight in relation to divine inspiration. The question becomes more difficult with the synoptic gospels. All three writers wrote what they believed was true, but there are three points of view with minor differences. God inspired, but the authors were mere humans taking divinely inspired thoughts and their own knowledge and expressing them in human language.

I should also highlight this problem with language. Even this little paragraph above is only a close approximation to my actual thoughts. When we all speak the divine language in heaven, it will be different.

Sabertooth · Tuesday at 8:07 AM

If a version was translated in good faith, it is inerrant enough that the Holy Spirit can still use it [John 14:26].

eleos1954 · Tuesday at 12:16 PM

timewerx said:
Context must still be carefully examined.

There were many verses supporting 2 Timothy 3:16 from the Old Testament and a similar teaching exists in Judaism (formerly Pharisee) scriptures as well as other apostolic epistles in the New Testament.

The point is, we find them first in the Old Testament and obviously, the Pharisees taught them as well. It's not surprising that Paul and the other disciples believe in the same thing.

However, we won't find such instances from Christ's own words. Jesus did not instruct His disciples to keep reading the scriptures - when the Spirit of Truth comes, it will be the only guide they'll ever need - John 16:13, John 14:26. You don't even need anyone to teach you as long as you have the Holy Spirit - 1 John 2:27.

The Word of God would not become the scriptures

- The Word was God (John 1:1)
- Became flesh and dwelt among us (Jesus / Holy Spirit) (John 1:14)

For something very central to Christianity like the Bible, why would Jesus not give an instruction to make the Bible, nor even continue reading the scriptures?

the "Spirit of truth" will come and guide believers into "all truth" this to mean the Holy Spirit will provide new insights and understanding of the Scriptures, rather than replacing them entirely.
- Scripture and the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit is considered the divine interpreter of Scripture, illuminating its truths and guiding believers in applying them to their lives. Therefore, the guidance of the Holy Spirit does not eliminate the need for studying the Bible; rather, it enhances the study of it.
. Jesus’ teaching was about the Holy Spirit guiding believers into all truth, a role that complements and builds upon the scriptures, not one that replaces them.

Jesus Himself knew, respected, and lived by God's word, using it to overcome temptation (quoting "it is written"). He emphasized the importance of searching the Scriptures because they testify about Him and lead to eternal life (John 5:39).

timewerx · Tuesday at 5:03 PM

eleos1954 said:
the "Spirit of truth" will come and guide believers into "all truth" this to mean the Holy Spirit will provide new insights and understanding of the Scriptures, rather than replacing them entirely.

Scripture and the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit is considered the divine interpreter of Scripture, illuminating its truths and guiding believers in applying them to their lives. Therefore, the guidance of the Holy Spirit does not eliminate the need for studying the Bible; rather, it enhances the study of it.

. Jesus’ teaching was about the Holy Spirit guiding believers into all truth, a role that complements and builds upon the scriptures, not one that replaces them.

Jesus Himself knew, respected, and lived by God's word, using it to overcome temptation (quoting "it is written"). He emphasized the importance of searching the Scriptures because they testify about Him and lead to eternal life (John 5:39).

Despite the incredible importance/necessity of the scriptures to the Jews and to many religions and despite Jesus being fully aware of it.

Jesus never referred to the scriptures as the Word of God.

Jesus referred to scriptures distinctly from the Word of God.

Jesus quoted from scriptures "it is written" because at that time, the Holy Spirit has not been given yet. The scriptures is the only way Jesus can reach common ground with the Jews including His disciples.

Also given the huge importance of the Torah / Bible up to the modern times, the primary source of Godly wisdom and knowledge to many Christians, not once did Jesus mentioned the continued study of scriptures.

Nor the Holy Spirit will only (mostly) guide you in studying the scriptures. John 16:13 "All Truth". is the not the same as the Holy Scriptures. Because truth is also found in science, history, journalism, etc (not everything you hear or read on the internet or books are lies). If the scripture is far more important than all other sources of the Truth, Jesus would not simply bunch them all up as "All Truth". Jesus would have probably said, "guide you in the scriptures and all other truths".

Only the Apostles like Peter, Paul etc, continue regarding the scriptures of such huge importance.

Jesus didn't.

Disciples who were ex-Pharisees did. I'm not saying the Apostles are bad nor spreading false teachings deliberately. But a lifetime of being Pharisee, living among Pharisees can't easily come off even after couple of years walking with Christ. A clear pattern is emerging.

eleos1954 · Wednesday at 11:15 AM

timewerx said:
Despite the incredible importance/necessity of the scriptures to the Jews and to many religions and despite Jesus being fully aware of it.

Jesus never referred to the scriptures as the Word of God.

Jesus referred to scriptures distinctly from the Word of God.

Jesus quoted from scriptures "it is written" because at that time, the Holy Spirit has not been given yet. The scriptures is the only way Jesus can reach common ground with the Jews including His disciples.

Also given the huge importance of the Torah / Bible up to the modern times, the primary source of Godly wisdom and knowledge to many Christians, not once did Jesus mentioned the continued study of scriptures.

Nor the Holy Spirit will only (mostly) guide you in studying the scriptures. John 16:13 "All Truth". is the not the same as the Holy Scriptures. Because truth is also found in science, history, journalism, etc (not everything you hear or read on the internet or books are lies). If the scripture is far more important than all other sources of the Truth, Jesus would not simply bunch them all up as "All Truth". Jesus would have probably said, "guide you in the scriptures and all other truths".

Only the Apostles like Peter, Paul etc, continue regarding the scriptures of such huge importance.

Jesus didn't.

Disciples who were ex-Pharisees did. I'm not saying the Apostles are bad nor spreading false teachings deliberately. But a lifetime of being Pharisee, living among Pharisees can't easily come off even after couple of years walking with Christ. A clear pattern is emerging.

Psalm 119:160
The entirety of Your word is truth, and all Your righteous judgments endure forever.

John 17:17, Jesus prayed for the sanctification of His disciples through truth, saying, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

timewerx · Wednesday at 11:45 AM

eleos1954 said:
Psalm 119:160
The entirety of Your word is truth, and all Your righteous judgments endure forever.

John 17:17, Jesus prayed for the sanctification of His disciples through truth, saying, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

Jesus always referred to the scriptures (written text) as scriptures and never referred to them as the Word of God

On the other-hand, Jesus personified The Word of God and he also regarded as living or alive or life-giving. Jesus never personified the scriptures.

These not-so-subtle patterns.

Is the Bible inerrant?

Sinner in need of grace.

God is Love

Attachments

Well-Known Member

אַבְרָהָם

Sinner in need of grace.

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

<><

the village i--o--t--

Well-Known Member

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!

God is Love

the village i--o--t--

God is Love

the village i--o--t--

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency