Is the Bible Without Error?

Kenny'sID · Jun 6, 2017

It gets the point across quit well.

If there is anything in there that is confusing about the basics of reaching our goal to Heaven, it is likely confused by men, not the Bible.

If there is one area in the Bible that seems to make something important questionable, there are ten more areas that make that point clear.

Read it all, it's easy to get, unless we don't want to get it.

Lazarus Short · Jun 6, 2017

Translation is too often done with a "theological filter." That being so, I find odd renderings in my KJV:

"ages of ages" become "eternity"

"judgment" becomes "condemnation"

"condemnation" becomes "damnation"

"sheol," "hades," "gehenna" and "tartarus" become "hell."

I would never say that the KJV is the perfect word of God, as some do.

TaylorSexton · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
Well, to begin with, the Bible has internal discrepancies.

I think it would be soberer and more scholarly to say that that the Bible has apparent internal discrepancies. I can assure you that there is nothing you can list that has not been dealt with at length elsewhere by someone.

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
I would rather say, the indefectability--meaning that it was and remains inspired of the Holy Spirit, but error MAY have crept in in the various translations into other languages, even going from Greek to Latin. I am sure only of the inspired Word of God, which was made manifest in the Septuagint, (Greek) translation of the OT, and the Greek NT.

What no love for St. Jerome today Monk Brendan?

He used the Hebrew for his Latin Vulgate OT. Well mostly.

Now on 'indefectibility' you could just have said what your own CCC says: "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God"

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

Root of Jesse said:
It is the official Catholic position.

Never knew that. St. Jerome used very little of the Greek manuscripts to translate his OT Latin Vulgate.

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
To be clear, I'm one of those pesky evangelicals who question the Bible's inerrancy. (I've never heard of any evangelical claiming that the Bible is infallible, but that's cool too!)

You have not opined on what you consider 'inerrancy' to actually be. Perhaps start there.

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
This is the official position of my monastic superior. He has been Orthodox for 40 years or so. That is the reason I use it--also, we read from the Orthodox Study Bible, which uses LXX.

Have a copy and wondered why it looked familiar. Please explain this from the OSB site:

The Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version of the Bible as the basis for a fresh translation of the Septuagint text. The Septuagint is the Greek version of the Bible used by Christ, the Apostles, and the early church.

The Orthodox Study Bible

Kind of confusing.

From what I know, there still is not a true LXX translation into the English and that is an ongoing project. I do know there is an official NT translation published in 2013. Have a copy of that too, as I like the Byzantine text. Although, it is heavily foot noted like an NIV telling the reader what is or is not in the NU text.

EOB: The Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament: Based on the Patriarchal Text of 1904 with extensive variants: Laurent A Cleenewerck: 9781481917650: Amazon.com: Books

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
Sure, let us discuss the meaning of "inerrant". That is pretty important.

Sure is if one is starting an OP.

JoeP222w · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
The doctrine of inerrancy of the Bible is not necessary for salvation, in my opinion.

Necessary for salvation, no. I did not say that. However, if after being saved, you deny that God can speak to us without error through His scriptures, do you really know God?

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

Halbhh said:
Yes, but people make a lot of errors in interpreting verses without being aware of many other needed parts in other verses, often even in other books of the Bible. Many verses require a broad reading through the Bible to get the intended meaning, and so it's quite easy for people to come up with what seem meaningful contradictions, due to lack of the full context, which at times is even in other books. It's almost like a lock and key system at times -- you aren't given a chance to understand, unless you commit and read through much or all the Bible with a truly open ear, where you fall silent, and the Word does the teaching, and you the listening. Where you don't impose doctrine, but seek to have the Word teach you. You have to take the position that the Word is the teacher, and knows more than you know, and then continue reading, in trust. Faithful trust, even though you don't get something right this moment at times, trusting that you will later. Prayer can help in this I have found.

Biblical exegesis is not really the topic here. You make very good points though.

Hidden In Him · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
To be clear, I'm one of those pesky evangelicals who question the Bible's inerrancy. (I've never heard of any evangelical claiming that the Bible is infallible, but that's cool too!)

greenguzzi said:
What are the original manuscripts that you trust, and why?

Greetings, Social Anarchist.

Sounds like you are on the right track. Our Lord and Savior is infallible. The scriptures are not.

In reference to the original manuscripts question (which is getting to the heart of the matter, btw), I hold Alexandrinus and Vaticanus to be the most authoritative at the present time, and yet I ran across a passage just yesterday where the two wildly disagree with one another, and on an important verse.

Mark 9:29 reads in p45, 01X-corr, 02A, 04C, 05D, 019L, 038, and a host of others (literal translation):
"And He said to them, 'This kind is able to to go out by nothing except by prayer and fasting."

01X-org, 038, Alf, Tisc, Wescott/Hort, Weis, and UBS all read:
"And He said to them, 'This kind is able to to go out by nothing except by prayer." (fasting not included).

This would appear to be the barometer passage for determining highest authenticity, and so since even the two texts I hold to be most authoritative here disagree, I can only conclude that God never intended for us to rest our faith in written words, but on the Spirit of God to illuminate them.

God bless you. Stay on track. Sounds like you are learning.

1213 · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
Is the Bible Without Error?

I don’t know any error in the Bible, therefore I say, it is without errors.

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
When I first became a follower of Christ I barely knew one verse of scripture.

Hear ya bro, it's hearing the Word which leads us the rest of the way.

The doctrine of inerrancy of the Bible is not necessary for salvation, in my opinion.

No not necessary but should be important to you. How else can we test truth claims without God's revelation to mankind. The Bereans liked what Paul had to say, but made sure he was teaching a sound message. They searched the Scriptures...

Acts 17: NKJV

10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Timothy is reminded by Paul of the following:

1 Timothy 3: NKJV

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Then in his duties as an elder/bishop Timothy is told by Paul the following:

1 Timothy 4: NKJV

4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

The clincher for me is this:

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4)

Big Bold Red Letters there.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 6, 2017

1213 said:
I don’t know any error in the Bible, therefore I say, it is without errors.

I know of some errors in the Bible, therefore I cannot say it is without error.

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
Well, to begin with, the Bible has internal discrepancies. Would you like me to start listing them?

Sure.

ByTheSpirit · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to evangelical faith...
Or is it????!!

The original manuscripts are without error...

2,000 years removed from them with earnest attempts by some to destroy the faith, the Bible as we have it now is close to accurate. And still completely valid to learn and know God

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

TaylorSexton said:
I think it would be soberer and more scholarly to say that that the Bible has apparent internal discrepancies. I can assure you that there is nothing you can list that has not been dealt with at length elsewhere by someone.

Yes another term to use is Biblical paradoxes.

AlexDTX · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to evangelical faith...
Or is it????!!

Inerrancy of Scripture is believed to be only in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Translations have multiple errors.

redleghunter · Jun 6, 2017

ByTheSpirit said:
The original manuscripts are without error...

2,000 years removed from them with earnest attempts by some to destroy the faith, the Bible as we have it now is close to accurate. And still completely valid to learn and know God

'Error' is getting tossed around here as if it is the same as 'inerrant.'

It is fact there are typist/scribal errors, but we know about them. For example, we have over 25,000 extant NT manuscripts in Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and others to compare and contrast these typos, errors in punctuation or word orders. When we compare we come up with 99% accuracy by most scholars who are truly scholars and not just book writers.

So yes, we will find such 'errors' in some of the manuscripts, but not all of them. We know they are errors because the majority of the manuscripts don't have the same errors.

There is nothing doctrinally in contrast between these various manuscripts. No matter how hard people try. If there were difficulties in understanding the text in the original language, chances are we will have difficulties dealing with the same text in our own language.

Winken · Jun 6, 2017

greenguzzi said:
The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to evangelical faith...
Or is it????!!

Yes.

Is the Bible Without Error?

Is the Bible Without Error?

Of course it is, why would you ask that!?

Heck, no! Where shall I start!

I have no idea.

It depends on what you mean by "without error".

It's complicated.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus

Thank You Jesus!

Finally Old Enough

Thank You Jesus!

Come Lord Jesus

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Heimat

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency