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

[civilwarbuff]

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.

So the Holy Spirit leads to.....personal bias and weirdness......?

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.

Well I can't speak for other believers but I check my "judgements" against scripture as opposed to "church history and others in the community."

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.

You are right...."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." Not just "you may not like" but in total contradiction to what the Bible teaches.

 

[Willie T]

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

So.... you won't believe what the Holy Spirit tells you?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So.... you won't believe what the Holy Spirit tells you?

You are either myopic or can't read.....

 

[OzSpen]

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?

David,

Has it ever occurred to you that it could be your interpretation that is incorrect and not the Bible/Scripture that has committed an error with your alleged contradiction/error?

Matt 24:21-22 (ESV) speaks of 'the great tribulation'. I take care in determining to what this is referring. Rev 7:14 (ESV) also speaks of a 'great tribulation'. Are these referring to the same tribulation. I suggest to you that they are not because in the context of Rev 7:14 (ESV), that refers to a general tribulation that believers experience during their lifetimes on earth (see John 16:33; Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 4:17; 2 Tim 3:12; Jas 1:2-4).

However, in Matt 24:21-22 (ESV), Jesus is addressing a tribulation that will be experienced in 'those days' (v. 22). This will be a tribulation that has never ever been experienced and never will be repeated. When will it happen? Compared with world history, it will be a time of extreme distress experienced for a short time immediately before Christ's second coming (see Matt 24:29-31 ESV). This is what is mentioned in Rev. 11:7-9 (ESV); 20:3b, 7-9a. For the sake of God's chosen ones the days of this final tribulation will be cut short (Matt 24:22 ESV).

How does that compare with Luke 21:20-24 (ESV), which you claim is in conflict with Matt 24:22-23 (ESV)? Your allegation of conflict is because you are comparing apples with oranges. What is explicated in Matt 24:22-23 (ESV) has to deal with the great tribulation immediately before the parousia.

Reformed commentator, William Hendriksen, explains the differences well:

To a large extent the problems that confront anyone who tries to explain Matthew's or Mark's parallel accounts, with their highly symbolic language and manifestations of prophetic foreshadowing, are absent from Luke's report. The latter could almost be called a commentary on that of Matthew and Mark.

Having summarized what, according to Christ's prediction, would happen primarily and emphatically before Jerusalem's fall - although verses 8-19 also have their implications for the post A.D. 70 period - Luke now in clear language reports what Jesus predicted concerning that fall.

He predicts that Jerusalem is going to be surrounded by armies. When that happens, says Jesus, then you should recognize it as the "sign" for which you have been asking (verse 7), the sign of Jerusalem's impending destruction and desolation.... Concerned the welfare of the people he loves, Jesus issues three succinct orders: (a) Those who are in Judea must flee to the hills; (b) those within the cty must get out; and (c) those outside the city must stay out' (Hendriksen 1978:937).

Therefore, there is no contradiction between Matt 24 and Luke 21 (the contradiction is in your interpretation). Instead, they are describing two different events.

Oz

Works consulted
Hendriksen, W 1978. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

 

[Willie T]

You are either myopic or can't read.....

Not at all. Let's take two examples.... Shall we?

I imagine you believe God punished Jesus on the cross for us? Right? And you feel the Holy Spirit told you this.... through reading, or however.

I, on the other hand believe Jesus accepted punishment that was already an established consequence... and that God rescued Him from the full eternal consequences.

We both think the Holy Spirit led us (however we each see that) to understand that way..... so we each "believe" a certain thing.

If you see yourself as the one who is "right", then you have to see me as "wrong". And the same goes for me. In essence, we both now have a belief that we believe........... and are you willing to say my belief is only my imagination or "willfulness?" That I do not hear from the Holy Spirit because I didn't hear what you heard? Maybe you are.... but I am not willing to say that about you.

I can only say, "You believe something, and I believe something."

 

[civilwarbuff]

I imagine you believe God punished Jesus on the cross for us? Right?

Where did you come up with this...it is ludicrous. This is God's plan from the beginning...Christ is man's salvation from the beginning...Ask questions before assuming.....

 

[Deidre32]

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.

Hi - just curious as to what you mean by 'radical implications?'

Thanks for your responses, really good comments and very helpful to me on this topic. Glad you chimed in.

 

[Willie T]

Where did you come up with this...it is ludicrous. This is God's plan from the beginning...Christ is man's salvation from the beginning...Ask questions before assuming.....

You don't think Jesus took our punishment?

 

[civilwarbuff]

You don't think Jesus took our punishment?

That is not what you said....this is what you said

I imagine you believe God punished Jesus on the cross for us? Right?

Those are 2 different things.....

 

[sahjimira]

Words can b mistranslated but the overall concept is there. I have a few versions of the bible and a concordance with greek and hebrew translation. Very useful. I also rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me in my studies. He is faithful to alert me if I need to delve deeper. I do believe in the inerrancy of the bible and I also believe we r expected to study them carefully like the Bereans did. God gives us the understanding of His word line upon line, precept upon precept. The bible is a living book and spiritually discerned. If there was any manmade addition or subtraction I believe Gods' Spirit would bring it to the fore.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello OzSpen.

I do appreciate your effort and sincerity OzSpen.

Has it ever occurred to you that it could be your interpretation that is incorrect

I am not employing an interpretation, just reading the text OzSpen.

Please read this extract from Matthew very carefully, OzSpen.

Matthew 24
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through
Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who
are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down
to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get
his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those
days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there
will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now,
nor ever will. 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.

Did you notice the following points, they are as obvious as the nose on your face.

This event above is described as the great tribulation and is centered on Judea.

If this is the end of the world, what possible use is fleeing to the mountains?

Why would someone be concerned about fleeing in winter?

Matthew has erroneously combined the destruction of Israel, with the much later
end time events.

Luke's account separates these two events, the destruction of Jerusalem and
the distant end time event. Luke's Gospel was obviously written much later,
probably after the destruction of Jerusalen, post AD70.

Matthew's and Mark's accounts were obviously written much earlier and that
is why they are confused.

As far as Old Covenant Israel is concerned, all things have already been fulfilled.

If you do not mind OzSpen, could you explain the text above? Without referring
to any other text.

 

[sculleywr]

More important question: how does one even practice such a doctrine, in the absence of a perfect translation or copy of Scripture, what practical use is the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture? Or in the early Church, what use was the belief when many didn't even have a single copy of Scripture? One cannot practically apply this doctrine when there is no perfect copy of Scripture.

 

[OzSpen]

Huh? You can just as well say that most people who believe in inerrancy like it because they want to have guaranteed answers that don't require any thought. These are both ad hominem attacks, explaining away a view because of assumed personal motivations. In fact most liberals believe what they do because the nature of Scripture is most consistent with it being a human witness to God's actions in history.

Inerrancy requires us to dismiss parts of science, archaeology, and history, and to ignore development of people's understanding of God.

Hedrick,

That's not only insulting (I have a PhD in New Testament from an accredited university) but also inaccurate.

You say that 'most liberals believe what they do because the nature of Scripture is most consistent with it being a human witness to God's actions in history'. That's not what I encounter in dialogue with liberals. They admit, when pressed, that their conclusions are based on presuppositions like the one you gave - that Scripture is a human witness to God's action in history. That's not what the Scriptures state. 'All Scripture' is theopneustos (God-breathed). The Scripture does not affirm what you state about liberals.

For you to say that I, as one who believes in inerrancy, dismiss 'parts of science, archaeology, and history' does not apply to me. I assess science, archaeology and history with the renewed mind that the Lord is giving me, starting with Christian conversion about 50 years ago.

The Lord gave me a mind and the Holy Spirit's guidance to assess the validity of all of life. Your assumption about me is false.

Postmodern liberal, John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar stated:

• “Jesus’ burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals” (Crossan 1994:160).

• ‘Mark created the empty tomb story, just as he created the sleeping disciples in Gethsemane’ (Crossan 1995:184).

• ‘The authorities know and quote Jesus’ own prophecy that he would rise on the third day. That prophecy is mate to the disciples [Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33; Mt 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:18-19]…. The authorities do not necessarily believe Jesus’ prophecy, but they fear the disciples my fake a resurrection. Therefore, no guard is necessary because Jesus will have been proved wrong (Crossan 1995:180).

• ‘The risen apparitions in the gospels [i.e. the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection] have nothing whatsoever to do with ecstatic experiences or entranced revelations. Those are found in all the world’s religions, and there may well have been many of them in earliest Christianity. But that is not what is being described in those last chapters of the gospels. It is (sic) questions of authority that are under discussion there.... I do not find anything historical in the finding of the empty tomb, which was most likely created by Mark himself…. The risen apparitions are not historical events in the sense of trances or ecstasies, except in the case of Paul’ (Crossan 1995:208-209).

Crossan is the liberal scholar who has the audacity to state that 'Jesus' burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals' (Crossan 1994:160).

You have the audacity to try to want me to believe that most liberals believe 'the nature of Scripture is most consistent with it being a human witness to God's actions in history'. That's not so for Crossan and the fellows of Jesus Seminar. Marcus Borg, who died earlier this year, was a Jesus Seminar fellow whose religious philosophy was that of panentheism. See, 'The death of Marcus Borg, Christian panentheist'.

So for both Crossan and Borg, their heterodox theology was driven by another theological agenda than traditional theism.

Works consulted
Crossan J. D. 1994, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. New York, NY:HarperSanFrancisco.
Crossan, J D 1995. Who killed Jesus? New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hello OzSpen.

I do appreciate your effort and sincerity OzSpen.

I am not employing an interpretation, just reading the text OzSpen.

Please read this extract from Matthew very carefully, OzSpen.

Matthew 24
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through
Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who
are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down
to get the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get
his cloak. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those
days! 20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there
will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now,
nor ever will. 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.

Did you notice the following points, they are as obvious as the nose on your face.

This event above is described as the great tribulation and is centered on Judea.

If this is the end of the world, what possible use is fleeing to the mountains?

Why would someone be concerned about fleeing in winter?

Matthew has erroneously combined the destruction of Israel, with the much later
end time events.

Luke's account separates these two events, the destruction of Jerusalem and
the distant end time event. Luke's Gospel was obviously written much later,
probably after the destruction of Jerusalen, post AD70.

Matthew's and Mark's accounts were obviously written much earlier and that
is why they are confused.

As far as Old Covenant Israel is concerned, all things have already been fulfilled.

If you do not mind OzSpen, could you explain the text above? Without referring
to any other text.

I've already explained it to you. I don't plan on repeating it.

 

[OzSpen]

More important question: how does one even practice such a doctrine, in the absence of a perfect translation or copy of Scripture, what practical use is the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture? Or in the early Church, what use was the belief when many didn't even have a single copy of Scripture? One cannot practically apply this doctrine when there is no perfect copy of Scripture.

This is not true. The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture (in the original MSS) relates to the perfection of God who gave a perfect, inerrant revelation in Scripture.

The fact that we have so many thousands of MSS, partial MSS and scraps of MSS of the Bible, translators are able to compare MSS to arrive at translations that they consider are fairly close to the originals.

If we have Scripture that is not reliable, how do we know Jesus died and rose again? A lot hinges on the reliability of the Bible.

Oz

 

[sculleywr]

That's not only insulting (I have a PhD in New Testament from an accredited university) but also inaccurate.

You say that 'most liberals believe what they do because the nature of Scripture is most consistent with it being a human witness to God's actions in history'. That's not what I encounter in dialogue with liberals. They admit, when pressed, that their conclusions are based on presuppositions like the one you gave - that Scripture is a human witness to God's action in history. That's not what the Scriptures state. 'All Scripture' is theopneustos (God-breathed). The Scripture does not affirm what you state about liberals.

For you to say that I, as one who believes in inerrancy, dismiss 'parts of science, archaeology, and history' does not apply to me. I assess science, archaeology and history with the renewed mind that the Lord is giving me, starting with Christian conversion about 50 years ago.

The Lord gave me a mind and the Holy Spirit's guidance to assess the validity of all of life. Your assumption about me is false.

Oz

The main problem I have with inerrancy is that it is not a practical doctrine. There isn't any way for us to practically apply it. Which translation is inerrant? If none, then why does it even matter? How did the church in 2nd century Gaul live according to such a doctrine when they didn't even have written language, much less written scriptures?

The inerrancy of Scripture is the epitome of ephemeral doctrines. It has no practical application, so it really just doesn't matter

 

[OzSpen]

The main problem I have with inerrancy is that it is not a practical doctrine. There isn't any way for us to practically apply it. Which translation is inerrant? If none, then why does it even matter? How did the church in 2nd century Gaul live according to such a doctrine when they didn't even have written language, much less written scriptures?

The inerrancy of Scripture is the epitome of ephemeral doctrines. It has no practical application, so it really just doesn't matter

 

[sculleywr]

This is not true. The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture (in the original MSS) relates to the perfection of God who gave a perfect, inerrant revelation in Scripture.

The fact that we have so many thousands of MSS, partial MSS and scraps of MSS of the Bible, translators are able to compare MSS to arrive at translations that they consider are fairly close to the originals.

If we have Scripture that is not reliable, how do we know Jesus died and rose again? A lot hinges on the reliability of the Bible.

Oz

The perfection of God is not harmed by the existence of imperfect creations of God. We are the creation of God, and yet we are imperfect. The fact is, if a person thinks errors in Scripture harm the perfection of God, then they would have trouble handling the obvious contradictions in Scripture, existing as the result of four gospels. How many women were at the tomb? When was Christ crucified? When Christ fed the 4000, was He going into or coming out of Jericho? The Gospels contradict on all of these questions.

But since we don't have a perfect manuscript or translation, it doesn't really matter.

It took the church 700 years to agree on what the Bible even was. How could they practice this belief without knowing what the Bible was?

 

[OzSpen]

The main problem I have with inerrancy is that it is not a practical doctrine. There isn't any way for us to practically apply it. Which translation is inerrant? If none, then why does it even matter? How did the church in 2nd century Gaul live according to such a doctrine when they didn't even have written language, much less written scriptures?

The inerrancy of Scripture is the epitome of ephemeral doctrines. It has no practical application, so it really just doesn't matter

sculley,

Why didn't you address the content of what I wrote? This makes your reply a red herring logical fallacy.

It is a very practical doctrine because it deals with the trustworthiness of Scripture. If the originals were not theopneustos (God-breathed) from the perfect God (2 Tim 3:16), what hope is there for copies that are reliable? This is not the place to go into detail about the reasons for accepting an authoritative Bible from God with the original documents God-breathed and inerrant.

I refer you to Greg Bahnsen's article, 'The inerrancy of the Autographa', that gives excellent reasons why we should support inerrancy.

Thank you for engaging with me on this topic, but I urge you to deal with the matters I raise in my posts and not spin off onto this kind of response.

Oz

 

[sculleywr]

sculley,

Why didn't you address the content of what I wrote? This makes your reply a red herring logical fallacy.

It is a very practical doctrine because it deals with the trustworthiness of Scripture. If the originals were not theopneustos (God-breathed) from the perfect God (2 Tim 3:16), what hope is there for copies that are reliable? This is not the place to go into detail about the reasons for accepting an authoritative Bible from God with the original documents God-breathed and inerrant.

I refer you to Greg Bahnsen's article, 'The inerrancy of the Autographa', that gives excellent reasons why we should support inerrancy.

Thank you for engaging with me on this topic, but I urge you to deal with the matters I raise in my posts and not spin off onto this kind of response.

Oz

The trustworthiness of Scripture, for me, is based on the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth," from which the Scripture came. Scripture even cedes that position to the Church. The Church did not historically declare the Scripture to be inerrant. Heck, most every book was accepted only after serious debate, with people on two sides for each book, one side thinking the book in question to be spurious and others thinking it to be Apostolic. The doctrine of inerrancy is impossible to practice in a world where the question of "what is Scripture?" hasn't been answered. The doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy is a new doctrine that arose from the Western culture under the influence of the only religion that believed that holy books must be inerrant: Islam.

There are many contradictions that a person can find within Scripture, which challenge the doctrine of Scriptural Inerrancy. The number of women at the tomb, the day of the crucifixion, and the location of some miracles is just a small list of them. IF Scripture were truly inerrant, then these contradictions ought not exist.