My take on Biblical inerrancy

[tonychanyt]

See My take on Biblical inerrancy

 

[d taylor]

Bible inerrancy is speaking to the situation where The Bible seems to contradict itself. By saying one thing and then in another part of The Bible says something that disagrees with the other part.

Example, salvation is by faith in Jesus where other areas may say salvation is by something other than faith in Jesus.

The translations we have not have areas that i some cases have been altered in some areas because there may not be a word that will translate into English. Other types of changes is where a word may only be used in one context so it is hard to establish the word meaning.

This verse has been mistranslated
Job 26:7 it currently reads
He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

There is no support in The Bible for this verse to be translated this way.

But there is support for the translation to be translated this way.
"He spreadeth out the North over the desolate' place (the abyss of waters), and supporteth the Earth upon fastenings."

 

[eleos1954]

Is the Bible inerrant?

The word "inerrant" is not in the Bible. I prefer to stick to the wording of the Bible when I argue with people. What does the Bible actually say?

2 Timothy 3:

At Biblehub, 13 versions use inspired by or of God; 10 versions use God-breathed

What is the mechanical process of being God-breathed?

Job 32:

I'd define God-breathed as the process of a sacred word/thought breathed out by God to inspire a human's spirit to record it in a human language.

Jeremiah experienced this process in 36:

The LORD spoke the words to Jeremiah. Jeremiah dictated them to Baruch. Baruch wrote them down. But the king didn't like it and destroyed this scroll.

Once again, Jeremiah was inspired and obeyed.

Note that this 2nd scroll was not identical to the first one, even though both were inspired. In both cases, 1 Thess 2:


More generally, Ecclesiastes 7:

In the above, did the writer of Ecclesiastes quote from the mouth of God?

I don't think so. He was inspired by God generally to write this book of Ecclesiastes. When it came to this particular verse, the stress is on the I, the author himself. He inserted his personal opinion or bias here.

In the NT, Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:



There is a bit of circular or recursive reasoning in this OP: I believe that the Scripture is God-breathed because the Scripture says it is. This is an axiomatic tautology.

What is the alternative?

Let proposition L1 = Scripture is a lie.

L1 is self-contradictory and self-destructive and cannot be asserted logically as true.

BTW, I haven't proven that Scripture is true. I merely assume it because assuming the opposite is nut.

Is the Bible inerrant?

The word "inerrant" is not in the Bible. I prefer to stick to the wording of the Bible. People who like to generalize tend to overgeneralize.

Do you assume or believe scripture is true?

 

[tonychanyt]

Do you assume or believe scripture is true?

Neither. I believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

 

[eleos1954]

Neither. I believe that all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

ok ... you believe .... you just said so.

 

[tonychanyt]

ok ... you believe .... you just said so.

Of course, I believe in God. What did you expect?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'm not sure where I fall on this. The idea behind biblical inerrancy is that if scripture is inspired by God, or God-breathed, then certainly it would be inerrant. In fact, there scriptures that state the "Law of the Lord is perfect" and combine that with prophets speaking for God would have to be perfect, that doesn't leave much of scripture to get wrong.

Some of the historical text could be wrong if looked at from a literal sense. For example, in 2 Chronicles 20, scripture says that an army of 1 million Soldiers was coming up against Jerusalem to fight against it. 2700 years ago... an army of 1 million? I don't buy that. It's more likely that this number is hyperbole. I don't doubt the army was a large one, I doubt it was as large as described.