Is the Bible Without Error?

[redleghunter]

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.

Of course the KJV was written in Early Modern English. The vocabulary was limited at the time and to a great extent, the KJV helped formalize the English language itself as literacy improved.

 

[pescador]

Yes, the Bible is the inerrant and all sufficient word of God.



If a person denies the doctrine of inerrancy, they have nothing to base their faith in Christ on, so they are likely not a Christian.

This is totally incorrect. If one disagrees with doctrine, s/he might have a very good reason, but that has nothing to do with their faith in Christ. Some people are illiterate (or semi-literate) and may not even have access to a Bible. That has nothing to do with their faith. Jesus Christ is a person and one can be a part of his body without being able to read.

Be careful whom you judge to be "not a Christian"!

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Having or not having a full belly while casting out a demon is your #1 litmus test for textual veracity? Never heard this one before.

Now if I say I am 'illumined' by the Holy Spirit and you say the same thing, but we both are at odds on what we are communicating...How can our brothers and sisters in Christ test our messages to see if what either of us is saying is true?

 

[pescador]

How did you get saved if it wasn't through the scriptures? How did you know that Jesus died for your sin and was resurrected so that you to can have eternal life if it wasn't through the scriptures?

The same way that many, many, many people have been saved for 2,000 years: by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and believing it.

 

[redleghunter]

This is totally incorrect. If one disagrees with doctrine, s/he might have a very good reason, but that has nothing to do with their faith in Christ. Some people are illiterate (or semi-literate) and may not even have access to a Bible. That has nothing to do with their faith. Jesus Christ is a person and one can be a part of his body without being able to read.

Be careful whom you judge to be "not a Christian"!

Know what your are saying and not disagreeing. Let's take it a step further though.

If you are holding a Bible and preaching the Gospel to me an illiterate, and I believe what I am hearing by God's Grace and am saved. Now all I have is you telling me what is in the book because I can't read it. Maybe that motivates me to learn to read and read it for myself because the message that saved me came from that very Bible you were holding.

Now if you asking me the illiterate, 'do you believe the words I spoke are God's truth' I would say yes. I would not be able to examine the material myself that such a gracious gift God gave me came from knowing the message in that book you are holding.

So inerrancy takes on a different tone with those who could not read. That is why the Gospel has always come in Word and Power.

 

[Halbhh]

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

I agree, but I submit the reason many conclude the Bible itself isn't necessarily faithful to God (or even generally correct for some) is that they think they see incongruities that cannot be resolved, and the reason is that incomplete reading very often I think, and/or reading without an ear that hears.

 

[pescador]

Know what your are saying and not disagreeing. Let's take it a step further though.

If you are holding a Bible and preaching the Gospel to me an illiterate, and I believe what I am hearing by God's Grace and am saved. Now all I have is you telling me what is in the book because I can't read it. Maybe that motivates me to learn to read and read it for myself because the message that saved me came from that very Bible you were holding.

Now if you asking me the illiterate, 'do you believe the words I spoke are God's truth' I would say yes. I would not be able to examine the material myself that such a gracious gift God gave me came from knowing the message in that book you are holding.

So inerrancy takes on a different tone with those who could not read. That is why the Gospel has always come in Word and Power.

I would call this h-y-p-o-t-h-e-t-i-c-a-l. When Paul traveled the Mediterranean region he spoke what the Holy Spirit inspired him to speak. He definitely didn't travel around reading the Bible to people. (As you know, the "Bible" at that time was a collection of Old Testament scrolls.) He didn't tell them "what was in the book"; he told them what the Holy Spirit revealed to him.

On a more modern note. I have friends who were missionaries to people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea; they didn't even have a written language! They listened to what my friends told them and became believers.

All this is off-topic, so I'm dropping this theoretical/hypothetical conversation.

 

[rockytopva]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2 Timothy 3:16

The two trumpets... The Spirit and the Word... If you have no interest in the Word, and have not love for the entire Word of God.... then you have no Holy Spirit...

 

[Halbhh]

I would call this h-y-p-o-t-h-e-t-i-c-a-l. When Paul traveled the Mediterranean region he spoke what the Holy Spirit inspired him to speak. He definitely didn't travel around reading the Bible to people. (As you know, the "Bible" at that time was a collection of Old Testament scrolls.) He didn't tell them "what was in the book"; he told them what the Holy Spirit revealed to him.

On a more modern note. I have friends who were missionaries to people in the highlands of Papua New Guinea; they didn't even have a written language! They listened to what my friends told them and became believers.

All this is off-topic, so I'm dropping this theoretical/hypothetical conversation.

Wonderfully, this isn't an either/or, but instead a both/and.

Unexpected and wonderful things await all who would read the Gospels -- and not only those who have not, but also those who have already -- and I think especially the Gospel of John, and also I think you'd find it good to read the epistle 1 John soon after also.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Except that he did pay attention to the table of contents. He did go to the original languages, though.

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

 

[HeLeadethMe]

This is what I believe, and what I believe we all need to believe:

2 Timothy 3: 15 -17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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 perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

That said, we of course need to keep in mind that the quality of the translation is important, and it only makes sense to use the best translation possible........I'm no scholar but as far as I have been able to find out, the King James is the best one we've got in English. Of course original Hebrew and Greek would be the ideal if that were realistic for most people. I can say that comparing the KJV to the NIV, the KJV seems to be more "spiritual" in its wording........... having used both, I just discern that the KJV is more "in spirit" than the NIV.

The bible itself condemns the "lying pen of the scribes" in the OT, so it is possible that even the early manuscripts of the OT have received some doctoring..........however, if even Jesus Himself said that the scriptures cannot be broken..........then that has to let us know that what has come to us in the original Hebrew must be pure enough to be able to rely on.....that in spite of the intentions of man and devil, the Lord has preserved His holy word. But it could be another reason why it's wise to try to look at the whole counsel of God on any matter and rely on the help of the Holy Spirit....as well as try to establish all things by more than one witness of scripture whenever possible. We know for example that what the apostles wrote in the epistles agrees with the gospels and the OT, so we can safely rely on the epistles as well.

And I just believe that in spite of what may be some errors or doctoring........just like in our lives, we can't discount that it's the faithfulness of the Lord who is safely leading us home through many dangers, toils and snares......praise His wonderful name.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sure.

What makes you think the problem is the Bible, and not your understanding of it? (Not meant for you, redleghunter...)

 

[Halbhh]

The bible itself condemns the "lying pen of the scribes" in the OT, so it is possible that even the early manuscripts of the OT have received some doctoring..........however, if even Jesus Himself said that the scriptures cannot be broken..........then that has to let us know that what has come to us in the original Hebrew must be pure enough to be able to rely on....

Here's some useful news (you may or may not yet have heard) -- the dead sea scrolls included a full version of Isaiah which has been dated to 100 or more years before Christ, and confirms our own text of Isaiah as correct. That's quite meaningful for many. Isaiah contains many key verses about Christ, coming.

I also love the KJV, and I can assure you that there is rarely a case where either the KJV or NIV don't agree fully in all ways, but indeed as you say the in-spirit wording of the KJV is quite good and helpful often, and especially perhaps for those of us that grew up with it, as I did. Still, many times even a close and careful reader can benefit from checking other versions on verses that are difficult. Of note is also the very good ESV.

 

[redleghunter]

When Paul traveled the Mediterranean region he spoke what the Holy Spirit inspired him to speak. He definitely didn't travel around reading the Bible to people. (As you know, the "Bible" at that time was a collection of Old Testament scrolls.) He didn't tell them "what was in the book"; he told them what the Holy Spirit revealed to him.

Yes Paul did go where the Holy Spirit led him. However, he did preach in the synagogues and did use the TaNaKh (OT) and words of Christ to win souls for Christ.

Acts 17: NKJV

17 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

[...]

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. 12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

In Acts 13 Paul makes extensive use of the TaNaKh to convince his audience:

Acts 13: NKJV

13 Now when Paul and his party set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and sat down. 15 And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Men and brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.”

16 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. 18 Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. 19 And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment.

20 “After that He gave them judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. 21 And afterward they asked for a king; so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’ 23 From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus— 24 after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘Who do you think I am? I am not He. But behold, there comes One after me, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to loose.’

26 “Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him. 28 And though they found no cause for death in Him, they asked Pilate that He should be put to death. 29 Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 30 But God raised Him from the dead. 31 He was seen for many days by those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses to the people. 32 And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers. 33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:

‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.’

34 And that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He has spoken thus:

‘I will give you the sure mercies of David.'

35 Therefore He also says in another Psalm:

‘You will not allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

36 “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. 38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40 Beware therefore, lest what has been spoken in the prophets come upon you:

41 ‘Behold, you despisers,
Marvel and perish!
For I work a work in your days,
A work which you will by no means believe,
Though one were to declare it to you.’”

Paul was not the only one who used the TaNaKh to convince souls of the Gospel:

Acts 18: NKJV

24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he desired to cross to Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; and when he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; 28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.


Not to mention the extensive use of the TaNaKh (OT) use in Paul's epistles:

Romans 1: NKJV

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Romans 3: NKJV

3 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:

“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”

If the above is not convincing, then a Blue Letter Bible search came up with this:

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

It also seems Paul carted around some scrolls and codex books:

2 Timothy 4: NKJV

Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. 12 And Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. 13 Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come—and the books, especially the parchments.

 

[pescador]

Wonderfully, this isn't an either/or, but instead a both/and.

Unexpected and wonderful things await all who would read the Gospels -- and not only those who have not, but also those who have already -- and I think especially the Gospel of John, and also I think you'd find it good to read the epistle 1 John soon after also.

Right now I'm reading the New Testament in chronological order. I like John and 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Great writing!

 

[greenguzzi]

...

 

[surrender1]

Yes, the Bible is the inerrant and all sufficient word of God.



If a person denies the doctrine of inerrancy, they have nothing to base their faith in Christ on, so they are likely not a Christian.

Um...what did people base their faith on before the bible was canonized?

 

[greenguzzi]

No. Only trying to understand your general frame of reference. If this is your belief, how is that you identify as evangelical? Why not be mainline?

I didn't say I was evangelical. I asked the question of evangelicals, I never said I was one.

If you have a look under my picture you'll see that I identify as post-evangelical.

Edit: Actually I did refer to myself as evangelical in one of my posts. My apologies, that was a slip of the keys.
In my country I can call myself "evangelical", and people know what I mean. But I can't do that on an international forum like this because the word "evangelical" means something quite different in the USA to what it does here.

 

[surrender1]

What does it mean to say that through David, God breathed, “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock” (Psalm 137:9)? Are these inspired words without error? I think that this inspired statement by David is simply a case of God allowing the author to write a spiritual truth in a way that’s culturally relative to him. The spiritual truth of this God-breathed statement by David is to affirm that God will be victorious and wickedness will be punished. But it seems clear to me that the way David expresses this spiritual truth is culturally conditioned.

 

[greenguzzi]

Inerrant means, to me, that the Bible does not affirm anything contrary to fact.

So, for example: When the Bible says that the world was created in seven days, you believe that this is a literal fact?