Scripture Inerrancy and Paul's Letters

[sccs]

I would like to preface this by saying that I am a Christian and believe in the Bible as the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God. However, I do have some questions that arise when talking to other believers and non-believers alike about Scripture.

2 questions:

1) What does it mean when we say that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant? Does that only hold for the original Hebrew and Greek texts? Or does that hold for translations as well? KJV? ESV? NIV? NLT? The Message? Perhaps you could say that the original texts were indeed infallible and inerrant but does that mean that the translations are inerrant?

2) As a follow-up to question 1, when Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," is he referring to the Old Testament? This seems like because all they had back then was the Old Testament Scripture, possibly the Septuagint. However, in our context, we might assume that he's talking about all of the Bible. Then, is it presumptuous that he's writing this and saying that his own letters are inerrant and infallible and God-breathed? Is it presumptuous that he's calling his own letters "Scripture"?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful and wise answers to my questions!

 

[jlmagee]

I would like to preface this by saying that I am a Christian and believe in the Bible as the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God. However, I do have some questions that arise when talking to other believers and non-believers alike about Scripture.

2 questions:

1) What does it mean when we say that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant? Does that only hold for the original Hebrew and Greek texts? Or does that hold for translations as well? KJV? ESV? NIV? NLT? The Message? Perhaps you could say that the original texts were indeed infallible and inerrant but does that mean that the translations are inerrant?

2) As a follow-up to question 1, when Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," is he referring to the Old Testament? This seems like because all they had back then was the Old Testament Scripture, possibly the Septuagint. However, in our context, we might assume that he's talking about all of the Bible. Then, is it presumptuous that he's writing this and saying that his own letters are inerrant and infallible and God-breathed? Is it presumptuous that he's calling his own letters "Scripture"?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful and wise answers to my questions!

1)Infallible and inerrant in the original manuscripts when all is shuffled out.
None of the translations or paraphrases are inspired therefore are not inerrant or infallible. The translations are not from the original manuscripts. Some translations are more faithful to the texts they were translated from but there is something to glean from most of them including paraphrases.

2)He was referring to the OT, however, Peter equated the writings of Paul to scripture.

 

[St_Worm2]

1) What does it mean when we say that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant? Does that only hold for the original Hebrew and Greek texts?

Yes! Only the autographs, the original "manuscripts" are considered to be truly inerrant. The copies, in the original languages or in any other, are not considered so. You continue:

2) As a follow-up to question 1, when Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," is he referring to the Old Testament?

Yes, the context indicates that. Notice the verse prior which reads:

"From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" 2 Timothy 3:15
​

Paul seems to have the OT in view here as it was often referred to as "the sacred writings" by Greek-speaking Jews (MacArthur) and would have been that which his mother and grandmother instructed him out of "from childhood" (also see 2 Tim 1:5). You continue:

.......is it presumptuous that he's writing this and saying that his own letters are inerrant and infallible and God-breathed? Is it presumptuous that he's calling his own letters "Scripture"?

Paul is not saying that in this case, but even if he was, you could not label him "presumptuous". The Holy Bible isn't the Bible because the church says it is, it's because God Himself is the true Author. And the Apostles and the other writers were not kept in the dark. IOW, they knew what they were writing was Scripture and the other Apostles did as well. For instance, notice what Peter has to say about Paul's letters:

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction" 2 Peter 3:14-16​

​

Notice what Peter calls Paul's letters, "Scripture", yes?

Hope that helps a bit.​

Yours and His,
David​

 

[wayseer]

What does it mean when we say that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant?

I hear many Christians sprout these words but I have never been able to understand their explanation.

'Infallible' means that the biblical texts cannot make a mistake and 'inerrant' means incapable of being wrong.

But any reading of those texts will indicate that there any number of inconsistencies, mistakes of fact, or just plain wrong.

And as we don't have any extant 'original' texts we have nothing to compare.

The unfortunate thing is that these words, 'infallible' and 'inerrant' have taken on meanings of their own which then serve to empower some at the expense of others.

Having said that, such does not mean that the Bible is anything other than the revelation of God for humanity.

As a follow-up to question 1, when Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," is he referring to the Old Testament?

I think Paul's stance is probably the best reading we can make of the scriptures. 'All' scripture can be used for the intended purpose of basically guiding humanity.

As there was nothing known as the NT is Paul's day the only 'scripture' to which he could be referring was the OT.

But such does not stop us using the NT in the same way as Paul used the OT.

 

[ivanthegood]

what don't you like that Paul wrote?....cut to the chase

 

[ebia]

I hear many Christians sprout these words but I have never been able to understand their explanation.

'Infallible' means that the biblical texts cannot make a mistake and 'inerrant' means incapable of being wrong.

But any reading of those texts will indicate that there any number of inconsistencies, mistakes of fact, or just plain wrong.

And as we don't have any extant 'original' texts we have nothing to compare.

The unfortunate thing is that these words, 'infallible' and 'inerrant' have taken on meanings of their own which then serve to empower some at the expense of others.

Having said that, such does not mean that the Bible is anything other than the revelation of God for humanity.

I think Paul's stance is probably the best reading we can make of the scriptures. 'All' scripture can be used for the intended purpose of basically guiding humanity.

As there was nothing known as the NT is Paul's day the only 'scripture' to which he could be referring was the OT.

But such does not stop us using the NT in the same way as Paul used the OT.

"infallible" is particularly crazy. Fail (or not fail) at what?

 

[x141]

It would appear by Paul's own words about the discourse that follows this verse that it is not so called God breathed.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

 

[ebia]

It would appear by Paul's own words about the discourse that follows this verse that it is not so called God breathed.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

It is an interesting verse. If one's idea of "God breathed" is glorified dictation then the verse would seem to be paradoxical.

 

[wayseer]

It would appear by Paul's own words about the discourse that follows this verse that it is not so called God breathed.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Nice point.

I would argue that Paul is speaking here as a prophet would speak - the 'thus saith the Lord' is implied.

Of course prophets can get it wrong. I like the story of the prophet Jonah who decided not to be a prophet when called upon to do so. But then when he finally got round to delivering the message sulked under a burnt up vine when God reversed his decision about destroying Nineveh.

There is humour in the Bible.

 

[St_Worm2]

It would appear by Paul's own words about the discourse that follows this verse that it is not so called God breathed.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Paul does not have direct commandments from Christ concerning virgins to give us, but that does not mean the 'recommendations' he gives us concerning them are not inspired.

--David

 

[Fireinfolding]

It would appear by Paul's own words about the discourse that follows this verse that it is not so called God breathed.

1Co 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Unless judgment is given to them as he acknowledged it as such?

Paul stating there was no commandment of the Lord manifests his own carefulness in setting forth a difference between what the Lord has spoken in respects to a commandment (verses when he has not). Pauls judgment is rendered (even as he calls it just that).

He offers something that could be "helpful" especially by way of one abiding (as they are) verses not. He promotes doing well or doing better (in respects to two routes). But he doesnt say you sin if you take a route contary to the one he might discern as the better (after his own judgment) even when he says she'd be happier if she abides.

So its not a commandment of the Lord but he was speaking for their own profit and both routes were set forth (without condemnation) in taking either one. But he is responding to something they had question on, at least he sets forth (firstly) that he has no commandment of the Lord on this, but here are the two routes you could take in this situation, and whichever you take you are not sinning. So heres "my judgment" (in seeking your profit) and not to cast a snare on you. This in respects to serving the Lord without distraction, and "to this intent" here is my judgment on it (for what its worth to you) and in taking either (or) you havent sinned (if thats what you are worried about).

 

[x141]

Paul does not have direct commandments from Christ concerning virgins to give us, but that does not mean the 'recommendations' he gives us concerning them are not inspired.

--David

Peter said if any man speak let him speak as an oracle of God. To make Paul more like the guy next door, I don't think he was an oracle when Barnabas and him got into to a tiff over Mark. He later repents of this though. I know that's pushing the oracle thing to an extreme. The epislte's can almost leave you with the impression that what Paul said according to them was the summation of his knowledge of what it means to be in Christ. Though for one, I find I can't put down into words those things the Spirit opens to me, though I do try, and I am sure that I am not alone in this. We all have/are a White Stone.

 

[hedrick]

"God-breathed" is an over translation, that is, an attempt to get more specific meaning than is actually in the word. This is the only place it's used in the NT. In other Greek writing it has range of meaning. "God-breathed" translates it according to the roots. But that's normally not the right approach. Otherwise "Goodbye" would be a religious term ("God with with ye.") It would be better to translate it simply "inspired", and then look elsewhere in the Bible for more specific information on the mode of inspiration.

This translation is, as far as I know, specific to the NIV, embodying a specific evangelical theory of inspiration. Other translators have not followed their lead.

Of course the usual issue with Paul's letters isn't whether they are inerrant, but to what extent what he says is specific to the 1st Cent situation in which he wrote.

 

[x141]

That's why the treasure is hid in the field.

 

[hedrick]

Peter said if any man speak let him speak as an oracle of God. To make Paul more like the guy next door, I don't think he was an oracle when Barnabas and him got into to a tiff over Mark. He later repents of this though. I know that's pushing the oracle thing to an extreme. The epislte's can almost leave you with the impression that what Paul said according to them was the summation of his knowledge of what it means to be in Christ. Though for one, I find I can't put down into words those things the Spirit opens to me, though I do try, and I am sure that I am not alone in this. We all have/are a White Stone.

Looking at an interlinear and a commentary, I think the 1 Pet quote may be misleading. First, it's not speaking of the NT specifically, but of anyone proclaiming a message. Second, the word is logia, which has a range of meaning: sayings, oracles, messages. So this isn't really about the specific mode of inspiration of Scripture. It is saying that everyone speaking in the assembly should be speaking an inspired word, with inspired having the usual range of meanings.

 

[DamianWarS]

I would like to preface this by saying that I am a Christian and believe in the Bible as the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God. However, I do have some questions that arise when talking to other believers and non-believers alike about Scripture.

2 questions:

1) What does it mean when we say that the Word of God is infallible and inerrant? Does that only hold for the original Hebrew and Greek texts? Or does that hold for translations as well? KJV? ESV? NIV? NLT? The Message? Perhaps you could say that the original texts were indeed infallible and inerrant but does that mean that the translations are inerrant?

2) As a follow-up to question 1, when Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," is he referring to the Old Testament? This seems like because all they had back then was the Old Testament Scripture, possibly the Septuagint. However, in our context, we might assume that he's talking about all of the Bible. Then, is it presumptuous that he's writing this and saying that his own letters are inerrant and infallible and God-breathed? Is it presumptuous that he's calling his own letters "Scripture"?

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful and wise answers to my questions!

the original texts would be infallible and the translations would be limited to to the same pitfalls that every translation has in that they may not do justice to the original language and may then miss the meaning behind the text. However that being said there is no other work in all the world that has been translated and analyzed as much as bible has been and it is probably the most exposed work to critical discussion so its translated words come with a lot of accountability. This isn't to say you can blindly trust any translation but the more widely accepted translations among more orthodox Christians should be packed with a bit of weight to their words.

2 Timothy 3:16 assumes the scripture that Paul knew which would be the OT. Paul was a well learnt guy so he no doubt would be exposed to the Septuagint which was more of an available text of the day but he probably had exposure to both Aramaic texts and Hebrew texts as well. The books in the OT like in the NIV that you quoted from is the same books in the Jewish Canon of scripture. These books are considered an authority and given a place within Christian scripture because they are considered an authority by the Jews. Although this would assume the OT I think it would be irresponsible to say that Paul wasn't aware of his own letters being considered as scripture at that time and that this letter itself would also be included among them. Ironically 2 Peter 3:16 (same chapter and verse as 2 Timothy) is the verse where Peter confirms this putting Paul's letters in the same group as scripture.

the word used in 2 Timothy 3:16 translated in the NIV as "God-breathed" is somewhat of a controversial word to translate. The original word is theopneustos coming from the greek words "theos" which means God and "pneo" which means breath so a more literal translated word would be best connected with "God-breathed" as this is exactly what the greek says. The word "inspired" is also a well suited word and most may not know this but its original meaning is "immediate influence of God" and so its origins are very much rooted with God as the source. However today "inspired" is a very much different word and is now disconnected with the idea of influence from God. So because cultural this word is disconnected from God the word "God-breathed" I think still is best as it illustrates the literal concepts of the word and leaves the end scope of the word up to the reader instead of assuming the meaning to a word with a more narrow definition.

 

[hedrick]

However today "inspired" is a very much different word and is now disconnected with the idea of influence from God.

I agree. I'd translate "inspired by God," to make the connection clear, without being a code-word for inerrancy.

 

[DamianWarS]

I agree. I'd translate "inspired by God," to make the connection clear, without being a code-word for inerrancy.

I still think "inspired by God" still has a layer of interpretation with it that "God-breathed" does not have. Paul used theopneustos and perhaps the word may not have been intended to literally be "God" and "breathed" put together it is a unique word in scripture and its cultural significance is lost to us now and all we have is "God-breathed". The word "God-breathed" however doesn't interpret like "inspired" does but instead leaves it alone and allows the reader to interpret its meaning in context instead of the translator.

 

[hedrick]

I still think "inspired by God" still has a layer of interpretation with it that "God-breathed" does not have. Paul used theopneustos and perhaps the word may not have been intended to literally be "God" and "breathed" put together it is a unique word in scripture and its cultural significance is lost to us now and all we have is "God-breathed". The word "God-breathed" however doesn't interpret like "inspired" does but instead leaves it alone and allows the reader to interpret its meaning in context instead of the translator.

I agree in principle. However everyone I've seen quoting the NIV here thinks "God breathed" is an explicit endorsement of inerrancy. Knowing their background, I believe that's what the translators intended. So while literally translating the roots may seem to be the way to avoid imposing our own meaning, in practice it's worse than "inspired by God." Pretty much everyone agrees that Scripture is inspired. While in an alternate universe the term could be misunderstood, the term "inspiration of Scripture" is pretty widely used as the standard generic description, which allows for multiple theories on inspiration. So in practice "inspired" allows more leeway in interpretation than "God breathed" does.

 

[dollarsbill]

It gets quite interesting to watch many try to find errors in the Bible because they don't like what God said. Our many English translations are amazingly consistent.