Why is it necessary for a Christian to believe that the Bible has no errors?

[Deidre32]

INSPIRED = INERRANT = INFALLIBLE

Not sure why, but I'm teary eyed right now reading your words. It's good tears.

 

[Job8]

After all the Christ Himself, should be our primary preoccupation, not the Bible.

While Christ should indeed be our primary preoccupation, we should also be asking ourselves "How did the Lord Jesus Christ -- God manifest in the flesh -- regard the written Word of God?" For Him and His disciples it was the Hebrew Tanakh, and according to Christ EVERY JOT AND TITTLE WAS FROM GOD. That is precisely why the Hebrew scribes counted every letter when they made copies, and destroyed copies with transcriptional errors in them.

So it follows, that if every jot and tittle came from God, and was faithfully transmitted [the doctrine of Divine Preservation] then Christians should be able to assert with complete confidence that if Christ Himself regarded the Scriptures as INSPIRED, INERRANT, and INFALLIBLE, then that is what He expects from us. And when Peter and Paul speak of the Scriptures, they are including their own writings as the Word of God. Peter equates ALL OF PAUL'S EPISTLES with the Hebrew Tanakh, and equates his own letters with the OT books [BTW all Scripture is "prophecy" since all the writers are regarded as prophets (those who were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote)].

If God inspired His written Word, then it also follows that He preserved it, by causing thousands of manuscripts to come into existence, and not deviate from each other except for minor blemishes (which can be determined through collation). Proof? The Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls dates back to about 200 BC. Yet it is almost exactly reproduced in the Masoretic Text dating from around 900 AD. So for over 1,000 years there was no change in that text. And this applies to the whole Bible.

Why is the inerrancy of Scripture questioned today and generally rejected by so-called Christian scholars, seminaries and Bible schools? Because Rationalism and Anti-Supernaturalism in the 18th and 19th centuries attacked the Bible as the very Word of God. A whole host of theologians and scholars (claiming to be Christian) made it their life's work to destroy faith in the Bible, and therefore faith in Christ. Not even the Muslims did this to their Koran.

At bottom this was a Satanic attack on the Word of God. The elevation of corrupt Bible manuscripts by rationalistic scholars was another attack on the Word of God, therefore today's "modern Bible versions" are based entirely on the "Critical Texts", which in turn are based upon Gnostic corruptions of the Bible. This has led to spiritual confusion among Christians, since most Christians (including pastors and teachers) have no clue about these attacks. The NIV was referred to earlier. It is probably one of the most unreliable translations in existence, with thousands of omissions, including whole verses of the Bible. Yet it was promoted as the best thing since sliced bread, and most Christians fell for that propaganda.

 

[klutedavid]

David,

To whom are you replying? I urge you to learn to back quote so that we know which post you are addressing.

The Bible is more than a revelation of Christ Himself. It includes a revelation of history and culture in OT and NT.

What causes you to pose the question that God would allow Scripture to be distorted in certain places? What evidence do you have to suggest such a question?

Oz

Hello

I will demonstrate from the scripture that there exists a conflict within the scripture.

There are two specific accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem, given by Jesus to the
apostles.

Here are the two accounts.

Matthew 24
15 Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through
Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to
the mountains... 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved;
but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

Luke 21
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation
is near. 24...and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled.

Two entirely different accounts, Matthew has the end of days occurring precisely at the
destruction of Jerusalem. Where in Luke's account, Luke inserts the phrase 'times of the
Gentiles' after the destruction of Jerusalem.

If the scripture is without error, then why is Matthew's account incorrect?

 

[hedrick]

I don’t believe in inerrancy, but I think you’ve given a bad example.

Both look to me like a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Matthew’s statement about the days being cut short needn’t mean that it’s the end of time, and in fact that wouldn’t be my reading.

According to the Word commentary, the abomination of desolation is taken from Daniel, and referred there to the first desecration of the Temple in 168 BCE. Hence it’s reasonable to use it in reference to the second desecration.

The real problem with Matthew is later in the chapter (vs 29), when he speaks of an event as happening immediately. Does this mean that he expected the end after 70 AD? Many scholars think so.

My suspicion is that Jesus’ 1st Cent audience may not have distinguished as clearly as we want to. I’ve always felt that Jesus actually spoke about two different things, 70 AD and a final event, and that a section such as Mat 24 combines these without making the distinction clear. This seems to have been the predominant interpretation from Augustine through the Middle Ages. One medieval writer quoted by Hermeneia wrote:

“Thus also what Christ offered in the earlier answer actually and first of all applies to the time before the destruction of Jerusalem … it can nevertheless also be applied, secondarily and as a result, to the situation prior to the last judgment, because the destruction of Jerusalem was the type of the universal destruction that is ordained for the entire world.”

This is consistent with the Jewish tendency to interpret events typologically or eschatologically.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Job8.

How about we restrict the conversation to the New Testament.

God has directly spoken to mankind and the record of this, is certainly contained
in the New Testament. Does this then mean that every word in the New Testament
is reliable and inspired? Is every letter that the New Testament contains inspired?

That is just an assumption that has been taught and for a very long time.

So is the New Testament a word perfect document? Certainly not, the Bible is a
translation of various manuscripts, and part manuscripts, that have been discovered
in the past.

Many of these manuscripts contain variations from one manuscript to another.

Not only do we need to deal with the problem of the translation from Koine Greek
into English, which presents problems.

We also need to know and this is the difficult task, which of the older manuscripts
that we will accept as divinely inspired.

Over time in the first few centuries, the letters that were accepted as scripture
grew in volume. Whether or not the present New Testament contains some, or all
of these inspired letters, is highly questionable.

The real question is not so much whether the New Testament is wholly reliable.

Rather the question is, how reliable are each of the letters that comprise the
New Testament.

 

[klutedavid]

I don’t believe in inerrancy, but I think you’ve given a bad example.

Both look to me like a description of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Matthew’s statement about the days being cut short needn’t mean that it’s the end of time, and in fact that wouldn’t be my reading.

According to the Word commentary, the abomination of desolation is taken from Daniel, and referred there to the first desecration of the Temple in 168 BCE. Hence it’s reasonable to use it in reference to the second desecration.

The real problem with Matthew is later in the chapter (vs 29), when he speaks of an event as happening immediately. Does this mean that he expected the end after 70 AD? Many scholars think so.

My suspicion is that Jesus’ 1st Cent audience may not have distinguished as clearly as we want to. I’ve always felt that Jesus actually spoke about two different things, 70 AD and a final event, and that a section such as Mat 24 combines these without making the distinction clear. This seems to have been the predominant interpretation from Augustine through the Middle Ages. One medieval writer quoted by Hermeneia wrote:

“Thus also what Christ offered in the earlier answer actually and first of all applies to the time before the destruction of Jerusalem … it can nevertheless also be applied, secondarily and as a result, to the situation prior to the last judgment, because the destruction of Jerusalem was the type of the universal destruction that is ordained for the entire world.”

This is consistent with the Jewish tendency to interpret events typologically or eschatologically.

Hello Hedrick.

Thanks for the reply.

You may need to address the account in Luke and explain how you interpret Luke's
account. Because Luke's account is different to Matthew's account.

 

[heatedmonk]

John 1:1 tell us the word that is inerrant is God.
While the Bible, as some Christians see it, is the guideline to finding their way to the word.
Where confusion can occur as far as the inerrancy question is when people think scripture is suppose to be taken literally cover to cover.
But there are different ways to read the scriptures. Some scriptures are historic, some are meant to be read in parable form, etc... The Bible, as I see it, is inspired by God to inspire the seeker of him to find their way to the full inerrant word, which is God .
If there are errors in scripture it doesn't mean God is fallible.

There is a book I've on order by author Frank Turek, well known for his debate with now departed atheist Christopher Hitchens, Stealing From God Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case.

The book includes the full description of how to read the Bible so that it makes sense if you're a skeptic. Worth the time I think if one is asking the question about inerrant scriptures.

Asked this on another forum, and thought I'd ask it here, too.

Just curious on this point. If men were responsible for taking 'God's word' and putting it to paper, could it be that somewhere along the way, there were errors? That parts of the Bible might not be free from corruption? It requires faith to believe in the overall message of the Bible, and it requires the belief in God's grace to have a relationship with Christ...and to me, experiencing the Holy Spirit is all we truly 'need,' so why is it necessary to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

I ask this because as I'm exploring churches, their 'mission statement' is wrapped up in believing that the Bible has no errors. (errors of man)

What do you think?

 

[hedrick]

Hello Hedrick.

Thanks for the reply.

You may need to address the account in Luke and explain how you interpret Luke's
account. Because Luke's account is different to Matthew's account.

I think the same kinds of comments apply to Luke 21. Vs 5-6 and 20-24 are obviously about 70 AD. Did the rest of the chapter move into a vision of a later time? It’s certainly possible. But it’s not absolutely certain. The kinds of persecutions described did happen to Christians. The signs in the cloud are typical apocalyptic imagery, and should not be taken literally. So the whole thing could be about 70. But I’m inclined to accept a mixed interpretation here, just as in Matthew, with 70 being one example of something that would happen more finally at the end.

I tend to be skeptical of reconstructions of “what Jesus originally said.” I think it’s obvious that he expected the events of 70. Beyond that, I’m not so confident. Various scholars believe that he thought that would be the end, that the Gospel writers expected it even though he didn’t, that they added the predictions of the end, or that Jesus actually talked about both 70 and a final judgement, and the passages in Matthew and Luke combine them. My preference would be that Jesus actually did talk about both, and that given 1st Cent Jewish understanding, the Gospel writers (and possibly also Jesus) saw 70 as a foreshadowing of the end, and gave an account included both. Mark 13:14-27 has the same mixture. Note that some scholars have argued that given 1st Cent literary conventions and the various OT allusions, even Mark 13:24-27 could be referring to 70. In my view that’s possible, but less likely than a combined reference.

 

[klutedavid]

I think the same kinds of comments apply to Luke 21. Vs 5-6 and 20-24 are obviously about 70 AD. Did the rest of the chapter move into a vision of a later time? It’s certainly possible. But it’s not absolutely certain. The kinds of persecutions described did happen to Christians. The signs in the cloud are typical apocalyptic imagery, and should not be taken literally. So the whole thing could be about 70. But I’m inclined to accept a mixed interpretation here, just as in Matthew, with 70 being one example of something that would happen more finally at the end.

I tend to be skeptical of reconstructions of “what Jesus originally said.” I think it’s obvious that he expected the events of 70. Beyond that, I’m not so confident. Various scholars believe that he thought that would be the end, that the Gospel writers expected it even though he didn’t, that they added the predictions of the end, or that Jesus actually talked about both 70 and a final judgement, and the passages in Matthew and Luke combine them. My preference would be that Jesus actually did talk about both, and that given 1st Cent Jewish understanding, the Gospel writers (and possibly also Jesus) saw 70 as a foreshadowing of the end, and gave an account included both. Mark 13:14-27 has the same mixture. Note that some scholars have argued that given 1st Cent literary conventions and the various OT allusions, even Mark 13:24-27 could be referring to 70. In my view that’s possible, but less likely than a combined reference.

Hello Hedrick.

I favor a strictly literal interpretation of all Biblical literature.

As for Matthew's account, it is compressed (two events in one) and faulty.

Mark's account is also compressed (two events in one) and also faulty.

Luke's account is the correct account and is uncompressed (two separate events in history).

How do I know which is the correct version?

Simply we examine the intial questions that the disciples asked Jesus.

Matthew 24
3 Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming,
and of the end of the age?”

Three distinct questions.

1) Destruction of the temple
2) Sign of the return of the Christ
3) Sign of the end of the age

Only Luke's account answers all three in the correct order.

Here is the answer to the first question.

Luke 21
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days;
for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people.

Luke states that the wrath of God, in this scenario is strictly for Israel, 'this people'.

Luke tells us that there are in fact two separate events, the end of Israel above,
and the end of the world below.

Luke 21
24...and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the
Gentiles are fulfilled.

Two distinct times of fulfillment, one Jewish and one Gentile.

Further, if you are thinking that all things have already been fulfilled.

Luke 21
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

This fulfillment applies only to the nation of Israel in Luke's Gospel.

 

[Job8]

Hello I will demonstrate from the scripture that there exists a conflict within the scripture.

There is actually no conflict when you interpret these passages correctly. The Olivet Discourse is not reproduced exactly by each of the evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It covers the entire course of events from 70 AD to the Second Coming of Christ. So what we have in Luke pertains to 70 AD and the destruction of the scond Temple by the Romans, whereas what we have in Matthew pertains to the third Temple and the Second Coming of Christ. The Abomination of Desolation is yet future, and it will occur in the Third Temple.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I think the same kinds of comments apply to Luke 21. Vs 5-6 and 20-24 are obviously about 70 AD. Did the rest of the chapter move into a vision of a later time? It’s certainly possible. But it’s not absolutely certain. The kinds of persecutions described did happen to Christians. The signs in the cloud are typical apocalyptic imagery, and should not be taken literally. So the whole thing could be about 70. But I’m inclined to accept a mixed interpretation here, just as in Matthew, with 70 being one example of something that would happen more finally at the end.

I tend to be skeptical of reconstructions of “what Jesus originally said.” I think it’s obvious that he expected the events of 70. Beyond that, I’m not so confident. Various scholars believe that he thought that would be the end, that the Gospel writers expected it even though he didn’t, that they added the predictions of the end, or that Jesus actually talked about both 70 and a final judgement, and the passages in Matthew and Luke combine them. My preference would be that Jesus actually did talk about both, and that given 1st Cent Jewish understanding, the Gospel writers (and possibly also Jesus) saw 70 as a foreshadowing of the end, and gave an account included both. Mark 13:14-27 has the same mixture. Note that some scholars have argued that given 1st Cent literary conventions and the various OT allusions, even Mark 13:24-27 could be referring to 70. In my view that’s possible, but less likely than a combined reference.

I read a lot of "what I think" and "I believe" or what "scholars believe".....even "my preference". Why don't you stop and listen to the Holy Spirit....He will tell you what the truth is....follow His lead...not yours or others...

 

[klutedavid]

There is actually no conflict when you interpret these passages correctly. The Olivet Discourse is not reproduced exactly by each of the evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It covers the entire course of events from 70 AD to the Second Coming of Christ. So what we have in Luke pertains to 70 AD and the destruction of the scond Temple by the Romans, whereas what we have in Matthew pertains to the third Temple and the Second Coming of Christ. The Abomination of Desolation is yet future, and it will occur in the Third Temple.

Hello Job8.

Thanks for your input, it is appreciated.

There is actually no conflict when you interpret these passages correctly.

I disagree with your claim Job8, there is certainly a conflict.

The Olivet Discourse is not reproduced exactly by each of the evangelists
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It covers the entire course of events from 70 AD to the
Second Coming of Christ.

Yes, that is my point Job8. Matthew and Mark compress the fulfillment of the prophecy
into one event. The destruction of the temple at a future date. Luke's is the uncompressed
fulfillment of in fact two future events, and their fulfillment. Please read the three texts.

So what we have in Luke pertains to 70 AD and the destruction of the scond
Temple by the Romans, whereas what we have in Matthew pertains to the third Temple
and the Second Coming of Christ.

Incorrect Job8, Luke has two fulfillments, the temple and the end of days, they are separate
events. Matthew and Mark, only have one fulfillment in the destruction of the temple, which
is the end of days.

The Abomination of Desolation is yet future, and it will occur in the Third Temple.

Like you Job8, I lean towards a futuristic fulfullment of prophecy, but not of the abomination
of desolation. A third construction of a temple in Jerusalem, has virtually a zero probability
of occurring. Modern Israel is a secular society, there is no need to build a religious third temple.
This seems to be a popular view in eschatology, but it cannot be fulfilled because it has already
taken place.

 

[Job8]

A third construction of a temple in Jerusalem, has virtually a zero probability of occurring. Modern Israel is a secular society, there is no need to build a religious third temple.

Sorry but you need to stay up-to-date. Please note:

Indeed, there is a growing “Temple Movement” in Israel today with thousands of Jews working to rebuild the Temple. According to a poll taken last year in a leading newspaper Ha’aretz, one third of Israelis believe that Israel should erect the Temple on the Temple Mount.Israel’s Housing Minister called publicly for the rebuilding of the Temple, “We’ve built many little, little temples,” MK Uri Ariel said, referring to synagogues, “but we need to build a real Temple on the Temple Mount.”

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/19539/ready-rebuild-temple/#T8QbWaKv11Sg43fm.99

The Temple Institute has rebuilt an altar to the Lord in Jerusalem, and international scholars are marveling at the significance behind it. As part of the "Temple Movement" in Israel, the altar was inaugurated in December, and reports indicate it could be ready for Passover.

http://www.charismanews.com/world/48772-altar-of-the-lord-rebuilt-in-jerusalem-a-sign-of-the-times

SHALOM AND WELCOME to the official website of theTEMPLE INSTITUTE in Jerusalem, Israel. The Temple Institute is dedicated to every aspect of the Holy Temple of Jerusalem, and the central role it fulfilled, and will once again fulfill, in the spiritual well being of both Israel and all the nations of the world. The Institute's work touches upon the history of the Holy Temple's past, an understanding of the present day, and the Divine promise of Israel's future. The Institute's activities include education, research, and development. The Temple Institute's ultimate goal is to see Israel rebuild the Holy Temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, in accord with the Biblical commandments. We invite you to read our Statement of Principles. To learn more about the Temple Institute, click here.

https://www.templeinstitute.org/

The connection to this thread is that the fulfillment of Bible prophecies is very strong evidence of the inerrancy of the Bible. Just as prophecies concerning Messiah and His crucifixion and resurrection were fulfilled, His prophecies in the Olivet Discourse are being fulfilled, and shall be fulfilled.

 

[Deidre32]

SO GRATEFUL for everyone's responses, you have given me good food for thought. It has helped me a lot. I left Christianity for a time because of the Bible, and what led me back to the faith wasn't the Bible, but I feel like I'm reading it now with fresh, new spiritual eyes, and it's been beautiful. Perhaps not everything needs to make logical sense, and faith is about accepting that we don't know all of the answers or the 'why's' to everything, but we still proceed in good faith.

Question, what do you think about the Gnostic Gospels?

 

[Willie T]

I read a lot of "what I think" and "I believe" or what "scholars believe".....even "my preference". Why don't you stop and listen to the Holy Spirit....He will tell you what the truth is....follow His lead...not yours or others...

Then, no matter how hard you try to deny it, your conclusions will still be "what you believe."

 

[heatedmonk]

SO GRATEFUL for everyone's responses, you have given me good food for thought. It has helped me a lot. I left Christianity for a time because of the Bible, and what led me back to the faith wasn't the Bible, but I feel like I'm reading it now with fresh, new spiritual eyes, and it's been beautiful. Perhaps not everything needs to make logical sense, and faith is about accepting that we don't know all of the answers or the 'why's' to everything, but we still proceed in good faith.

Welcome back. 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Question, what do you think about the Gnostic Gospels?

A professor of NT studies, Daniel Wallace, critiques the Gnostic Gospels being scholars consider texts after 100 A.D to not be worthy of the Canon. He's on YT speaking of this. There is a longer lecture by Dr. Wallace but this is short and should suffice for now.

For me, I will take God's wisdom wherever I find it. If reading the GG's feels like they are his words and their content rings familiar to that of the Canon books, it's fine with me.
Consider that the Gnostics went to the trouble of burying their sacred scrolls in jars for some reason. They wanted to preserve the words , hide them from an enemy.
Were they not inspired to do so? Were they not people of God? Would they go to all that trouble to hide nonsense ?

 

[hedrick]

Then, no matter how hard you try to deny it, your conclusions will still be "what you believe."

How do we make sure we hear the Word as God wants us to? There's no fool-proof method. Individuals interpreting it as they think the Holy Spirit guides them seems the most likely to end up with personal biases. The widest range of weirdness seems to have come from that kind of personal inspiration.

An early attempt (17th Cent) was the idea of "literal interpreation." The idea was to take Scripture so literally that there would be no subjectivity. Unfortunately history has shown that literal interpretations change over time. And because people don't think they're using any personal judgement, they don't use methods to check their judgements.

Confessional Protestants and Catholics, in different ways, check their judgements against both church history and others in the community. This is probably the best protection against idiosyncrasy. But it still allow the community / tradition to drift.

The reason mainline churches depend upon scholarship is that scholars have tried to develop methods to maintain as much objectivity as possible. But that's not a panacea. One difficulty with scholarship is that most scholars that don't start out committed to maintaining traditional theology (which seems inconsistent with the goal of being objective) tend to come to conclusions that you may not like. Things like the early OT not being historically accurate, and many of the NT books not being authored by their traditional authors.

My church uses several approaches, as do others. We do theology as a community; we check it against historical theology. But we understand that traditions have erred, and are willing to change. We make use of the best scholarship we know to help us understand the original intent of the Scriptural authors. That's about the best combination of approaches I know of. This combination is actually fairly common.

 

[Willie T]

How do we make sure we hear the Word as God wants us to? There's no fool-proof method. Individuals interpreting it as they think the Holy Spirit guides them seems the most likely to end up with personal biases. The widest range of weirdness seems to have come from that kind of personal inspiration.

An early attempt (17th Cent) was the idea of "literal interpreation." The idea was to take Scripture so literally that there would be no subjectivity. Unfortunately history has shown that literal interpretations change over time. And because people don't think they're using any personal judgement, they don't use methods to check their judgements.

Confessional Protestants and Catholics, in different ways, check their judgements against both church history and others in the community. This is probably the best protection against idiosyncrasy. But it still allow the community / tradition to drift.

The reason mainline churches depend upon scholarship is that scholars have tried to develop methods to maintain as much objectivity as possible. But that's not a panacea. One difficulty with scholarship is that most scholars that don't start out committed to maintaining traditional theology (which seems inconsistent with the goal of being objective) tend to come to conclusions that you may not like. Things like the early OT not being historically accurate, and many of the NT books not being authored by their traditional authors.

My church uses several approaches, as do others. We do theology as a community; we check it against historical theology. But we understand that traditions have erred, and are willing to change. We make use of the best scholarship we know to help us understand the original intent of the Scriptural authors. That's about the best combination of approaches I know of. This combination is actually fairly common.

And atrocities like the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and the Salem Witch Hunts, to name a few, came from the other extreme of being shackled by tradition.

I have found but one way that works for me. If it doesn't reflect what Jesus taught, it ain't teaching me.

 

[hedrick]

Normal scholarship, liberal or conservative, doesn't regard the Gnostic Gospels as being as early as the canonical ones nor with any real independent historical basis. Thomas, if you consider it Gnostic, is a possible exception. I'm not convinced it's a very useful historical source. But it doesn't have the radical implications of some of the real Gnostic writings anyway.

One of the characteristics of Gnostics was creativity. This can lead to interesting writings, but their approach doesn't seem designed to preserve historical material accurately.

I'm not claiming that the canonical Gospels are perfect, but if you read the Gnostic works next to them, I think the difference is pretty pronounced.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Then, no matter how hard you try to deny it, your conclusions will still be "what you believe."

No, my "conclusions" will be where the Holy Spirit leads me not what I believe....world of difference there.....