Is The Bible Inerrant?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I think Bible inerrancy may implicitly be one of the "items of the faith" noted in the mission statement. What you're doing is like getting drunk in a Baptist Church.

I am a card-carrying evangelical, and that means that I believe in inerrancy of the Bible.

The problem is with the meaning of inerrancy. As long as there is unambiguous text that says simply one very straightforward thing in clear, unambiguous words, then the proof of inerrancy would be easy. We would see that everything it says is simply true.

But it is not so easy. While there are unambiguous statements, it is not all so clear. That means we have to analyze and interpret. And if we get competing interpretations (which has happened over and over) then who is right.

I believe that scripture is inerrant in terms of its revelation of God. But to arrive at that revelation, there is a lot that could be said with different words or in different ways that would arrive at the same revelation.

What is fully errant is our insistence on over-analysis of the flavors of words used to say otherwise straightforward things. People come and add their overlays and read through their foggy glasses and do stupid things like read "God is spirit" and conclude that it means that God is the Holy Spirit. Or read "became a quickening (life-giving) spirit" and insist that it must mean the Holy Spirit because there is only one spirit.

I know that those are poor examples. But they are germaine to discussions about the LRC. I can go into the counter-argument that "spirit" in both verses is about nature, not a name, therefore those verses do not mean what Lee and Nee say that they mean.

And so many of the outward divisions of Christianity, and even the debates going on within many groups, are much more complex and less obvious than those two.

How does going through this help with the "inerrancy" issue? Maybe it doesn't. But I think that maybe it does. I believe that the things that matter are not mired in those problems. And while there may be a correct answer for many of the disagreements, they mostly do not matter.

But the revelation of God is accurate. The primary directions to the church and to the Christian are accurate. The only problem is the mess that we have made it into.

While not on topic, there is a song on worship that says something like "I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it, when it's all about you."

Similarly, scripture is inerrant. What is full or error is our interpretation. Is our majoring on the minors. Is the insistence on the optionals. Is emphasizing and deemphasizing based on our preferences.

The end result is that while scripture is inerrant, the fact is almost irrelevant as long as we keep insisting on our erroneous interpretations. It is almost better to insist upon just reading it and letting it speak for itself. Sure. Get some background on the culture, the times, the events that lead to the writing (such as with the Psalms). But ultimately, they should mean what they say, not something else.

(Do not take that last statement as an insistence upon turning metaphors and pictures into literal things.)

[OBW]

When reading some blogs on various subjects recently, I was pointed to an archived post from 2005 on inerrancy that acknowledged a response in another blog.

The first is by Michael Spencer, and he is lamenting as he explains why he has a problem with inerrancy. Read it here.

The response is part of an abandoned blog call JollyBlogger that somewhat takes an opposing view (yet seems to somewhat hold the some overall position on the whole). Read it here.

Don't think that either can be used to pigeon-hole me. But they do represent a lot the things that I think about the subject. And I do find that the differing views on the term demonstrate the problem with it (the term).

There is no problem with the idea that scripture says precisely what it sets out to say and that it is the truth. The problem is what I think it is saying and what I do with it.

Bible — inerrant

Reader — very errant

And because there is always a reader, it sort of doesn't matter that the Bible is inerrant because it does not get to hit you on the side of the head with a 2x4 when you misinterpret it and start off on a crazy tangent. (And it doesn't step in to decide who is on the crazy tangent and who is getting it right.) I'm comfortable that enough people reading together and letting the Spirit speak to them will discover the truth in scripture. And I'm comfortable with some varieties in interpretation that do not stand in opposition to the underlying premises of the scripture.

"Inerrant" is only meaningful if God dictated it (or better yet, wrote it out himself) in my language (as currently in use). Just back it up to the 1,600s and there will be problems in determining what it said. Forget that it is actually written in several different ancient dialects of what are (to me) foreign languages. I'm now stuck with what others think is the best way to translate it to my language. What if they are misinterpeting it as they make those decisions?

Lee surely did.

And I probably would too.

[zeek]

I will not question Bible inerrancy on this forum except to know what is meant by the term. It is a negative term for what we are discussing. It's positive counterpart is perfection. Inerrancy requires perfect knowledge and perfect execution. It's substance is the breath of God, the Spirit who is God Himself. The reception of the breath of God is inspiration by which is meant to be infused with the Spirit.The question remains: How is this so?

[aron]

Originally Posted by zeek

The reception of the breath of God is inspiration by which is meant to be infused with the Spirit.The question remains: How is this so?

Nice question. I like Proverbs 30:5 which says "Every word of God is pure (i.e. proven, tested, refined). In that sense I think everyone would agree that God's word is inerrant, simply as a logical proposition. God is adequate, and so is His speaking.

How well does our Bible capture God's speaking? There seem to be fuzzy edges in that some Christian groups have canons that differ. Some books are quoted by "God's word", that were not accepted as "God's word" (i.e Book of Enoch). And then there are various translations, etc. As OBW said, we don't presume perfection/inerrancy in that manner.

To go back to your statement: the perfect breath of God is to some degree reaching me (inspiring) in the Word of His Son. "God, having spoken to us in many ways and many forms in the past, now is speaking to us in His Son". The key phrase is, "to some degree". Peter clearly was not inerrant. He made many mistakes, carefully recorded in the gospels and even in Paul's epistles. Nor should we presume any of the others, less documented, were less error-prone. And so on down the line -- we as readers (myself, anyway) share in the effects of "the fall". I really may be "the least of the saints"!

God was pleased to breathe perfection into me in the Person of His Son, through the Holy Spirit, when by faith I opened my mouth and declared the truth of the words in the Bible that "Jesus is Lord!". The imperfection and errancy in that process are on my end, and not on God's end.

[james73]

Originally Posted by zeek

I will not question Bible inerrancy on this forum except to know what is meant by the term. It is a negative term for what we are discussing. It's positive counterpart is perfection. Inerrancy requires perfect knowledge and perfect execution. It's substance is the breath of God, the Spirit who is God Himself. The reception of the breath of God is inspiration by which is meant to be infused with the Spirit.The question remains: How is this so?

I went to a ministry meeting last night with a DVD from Bob Sorge, the last in the series of "Secrets of the Secret Place". I find I don't agree with Sorge's ideas in a lot of places - last night he was labouring to find what the seven flames in the lampstand in Zechariah 4 represented but it sounded like a concordance project to me.... (now, search "fire", now find seven instances which sound great in a sermon....)

However, I did sit up and take notes when he started talking about the two Olive trees in Zechariah 4:11, because it seemed this was what we've been discussing a little here: he says, in his interpretation (and he said he could well be wrong) : the two olive trees by the side of the lampstand are the Word and the Spirit.

He said you need both - if you get the Spirit without the Word, "we'll wave goodbye to you, because you're off, you're gonna get weird". I found that quite funny and appropriate to our discussion here the last few days. I think a couple of people waved goodbye to me when I suggested you could enjoy the spirit without the word

Thinking about Sorge's idea, I had a slightly new perspective on the Word as a guide to the experience of the Spirit - a God-inspired guide written over the centuries to help us understand this strange spirit experience. In this case, inerrant therefore being a better word than perfect. You would never see the instruction manual for a piece of IKEA furniture being described as "perfect" but you would hope it was "inerrant", because without it you'll be lost.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to discuss bible inerrancy without the Spirit, because without the Spirit the bible is not the Word, it's just a collection of books. The instructions to a Billy bookcase are only inerrant for a Billy bookcase construction, the bible is only inerrant when read with the Spirit.

It's a kind of chicken and egg mystery - the Spirit and the Word. Historically was can argue, well obviously the Spirit came before the bible, because writing wasn't invented until the Slovenians perfected ink manufacture in 1066AD etc etc- but that's not the mystery - the mystery is, which came first, the Spirit or the Word?

A Buddhist answer to chicken and egg is that both are an illusion, names given to a collection of cells. The bible itself is an illusion too, a complicated mess of translations with a cover and a stamp on the front, it's not a "bible" it's a collection of atoms. We can argue over its source and we'll only go back to atoms and printing presses, but the Word - this is not a physical thing, it's aligned with the spirit. The Word lives in the bible when the Spirit is present.

What we have in LC is the bible, not the Word, because the spirit is denied by the Life Study and the footnotes. We won't get the Word until we delete the footnotes and open to the spirit.

This, to me, is the concept of inerrancy. Not "verse X says Y" which kills the spirit so quickly. Once, feeling generous, I said to my LC group that indeed, the concept of Locality was a great idea, I wanted to share something about it and immediately someone jumped in, piously, looked at me quite pityingly and said "it's not a concept! it's in the bible". My sharing was just killed dead. This is the sort of "bible inerrancy" which gives bible inerrancy a bad name, it's confusing inerrancy with interpretation and assuming the interpretation is inerrant.

OK sorry for the longish posts---- this is probably all first grade to most of you, I'm just enjoying exploring these ideas. Plus it's lonely out here in GMT+8 while you guys are probably all sleeping or out guzzling kegs

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by james73

... I had a slightly new perspective on the Word as a guide to the experience of the Spirit - a God-inspired guide written over the centuries to help us understand this strange spirit experience. In this case, inerrant therefore being a better word than perfect.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to discuss bible inerrancy without the Spirit, because without the Spirit the bible is not the Word, it's just a collection of books ... the bible is only inerrant when read with the Spirit.

The Word lives in the bible when the Spirit is present.

OK sorry for the longish posts---- this is probably all first grade to most of you, I'm just enjoying exploring these ideas. Plus it's lonely out here in GMT+8 while you guys are probably all sleeping or out guzzling kegs

Hey "GMTplus8" calling from "GMTminus5."

Great comments here. One verse that always challenged me, yet which has made my journey all the more difficult and yet exciting at the same time, is that we were never instructed to "walk by the word," rather we "walk by the Spirit," which is almost identical to the verses which instruct us to "walk by faith."

To "walk by the word," without the Spirit of faith, probably means we have degenerated into walking by the letter. There is neither faith nor the Spirit required for this walk. Instead of sharing what fellowship God has given to us in the Spirit, walking by the word usually means we are critical of one another. Yet, as you have warned, without the word, you will get weird, sorry to say. You will not become legalistic, yet you will accept numerous philosophies which rob you from reality. And without the foundation of faith, all sorts of avenues will become appealing.

Anyways, these kinds of discussion are never first grade.

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

Thinking about Sorge's idea, I had a slightly new perspective on the Word as a guide to the experience of the Spirit - a God-inspired guide written over the centuries to help us understand this strange spirit experience. In this case, inerrant therefore being a better word than perfect. You would never see the instruction manual for a piece of IKEA furniture being described as "perfect" but you would hope it was "inerrant", because without it you'll be lost.

Perhaps it is irrelevant to discuss bible inerrancy without the Spirit, because without the Spirit the bible is not the Word, it's just a collection of books.

Thanks for the tip on Sorge. I am interested in the scene of the "throne". Jesus, while a man on earth, dwelt in the Shadow of the Almighty. The rest of us wander about, at least I do, occasionally stumbling on some "living water" only to have it dry up almost instantly.

How did Jesus dwell there, continually? How was, and is, a Man able to stand there and intercede for us? How does He sit at His right hand? How do, in fact, "all the angels of God worship Him?" These mystical scenes in the bible are our roadmap home. They literally show us the Spirit. The four gospels show us the effect of the Spirit, but the "secret of the secret place" shows us the Spirit.

So in that sense the bible is inerrant. It shows us the way home to the Father. Our ability to follow directions seems to be a little suspect.

That is why I became so interested in the Psalms. They show us mystical scenes, which Lee said were "fallen concepts" and which I largely agreed with, until recently. I found that, ironically, Lee was right; when you "strike the Spirit in the Word with your human spirit" it will give you a vision in the Word which will become your directions home...

As a Buddhist once told me, "The path and the destination are the same thing."

Originally Posted by james73

This, to me, is the concept of inerrancy. Not "verse X says Y" which kills the spirit so quickly. Once, feeling generous, I said to my LC group that indeed, the concept of Locality was a great idea, I wanted to share something about it and immediately someone jumped in, piously, looked at me quite pityingly and said "it's not a concept! it's in the bible". My sharing was just killed dead. This is the sort of "bible inerrancy" which gives bible inerrancy a bad name, it's confusing inerrancy with interpretation and assuming the interpretation is inerrant.

That "it's in the bible" is a conversation-killer for sure. "Hey, buddy, what are you doing with that jug of poison in your hand, ready to drink?!?"

"It's in the bible" (Mark 16:18)

Originally Posted by james73

sorry for the longish posts---- this is probably all first grade to most of you, I'm just enjoying exploring these ideas. Plus it's lonely out here in GMT+8 while you guys are probably all sleeping or out guzzling kegs

Very nice writing. I don't consider your ideas "first grade" at all. No longer guzzling kegs, thank God. Those days are over.

[awareness]

I'm afraid to respond to posts out here. We're unable to openly discuss inerrancy without the risk of getting kick off the forum. As if that's the way to hold to truth ; just block anything disagreeable out, and stop all contrary thought.

I lived with that in the local church. But I left the local church and don't operate like that anymore. I'm now open to whatever God wants to show me. And I'm open like Witness Lee condemned : "Open like a trash can." Boy that was a brilliant method of stopping thought.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

That "it's in the bible" is a conversation-killer for sure. "Hey, buddy, what are you doing with that jug of poison in your hand, ready to drink?!?"

"It's in the bible" (Mark 16:18)

Aron makes a funny with this. And provides me with one reason I don't think the Bible is inerrant.

That's because the end of Mark is a real mess in the NT manuscripts. There's two versions of Mark in the NT manuscripts ; a short version, and a long version.

The short version cuts off at Mark 16:8, and the long versions has the crazy stuff, like drinking poison and snake handling. (And believers are dying because of it.)
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-...iw=944&bih=487

So there's two versions of Mark in the manuscripts. And obviously there can't be two copies of the original autograph copy. So somebody messed with the autograph copy of Mark, and either added to it, or deleted from it, and we don't know who. But it's likely that a scribe didn't like Mark ending with :

"And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

So he added the crazy stuff.

So if God protected the scripture, as some claim, He didn't do a very good job of protecting the gospel of Mark.

And such a claim therefore impugns God ... which offends me.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

There is no problem with the idea that scripture says precisely what it sets out to say and that it is the truth. The problem is what I think it is saying and what I do with it.

Bible — inerrant

Reader — very errant

The good news is that God has spoken to sinful, errant man.
The bad news is that God has spoken to sinful, errant man.

Those who question the accuracy and inerrant nature of the Bible are barking up the wrong tree. The accuracy and inerrant nature were verified and confirmed long, long ago by many learned and wise men, some who were within a generation or two of the original authors. There is very little doubt that these men had extremely accurate and complete copies of the original writings. It was with these accurate and complete copies that many of the early church "fathers" produced some of the earliest polemics and creeds.

Over the centuries have sinful, errant men taken the pure and inerrant teaching and message of the Word of God and corrupted it, twisting it for their own evil and selfish purposes? Sure. Have false teachers taken the pure and inerrant teaching and message of the Word of God, adding to it when they wished, taking away from it when they wished, all to bring more sinful, errant men under their power and spell, sometimes tickling their ears, and other times beating them over the head with it? Absolutely.

God has chosen to speak to sinful, errant man. He spoke to man before he fell and became sinful and errant, and he spoke to man after he fell and became sinful and errant. He spoke to people, and to his chosen people, in various ways. He even allowed a Donkey to speak one time. "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2) It is very likely that when the writer of Hebrews penned this the Lord Jesus was already resurrected and not physically ministering on the earth. So "has spoken to us" meant something that was in writing, written down and passed down to all the Christians. This was the Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation - The New Testament. This is how the Son speaks to us in these days. We can ignore it if we so choose, but we do so at great peril I believe. We can also choose to deny that the Bible is actually the Word of God, and we do this at an even greater peril.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Romans 10:14 If we deny the Bible is the Word of God we leave God with no way to speak to us in these last days. The next time that God comes out of the clouds with a thundering voice to speak to man it will be too late for many. The Son of Man will be coming in power and glory with his angels. Then many will be weeping and will remember what God has spoken to man for centuries and millennia in His Word - The Holy Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" (Heb 1:2) It is very likely that when the writer of Hebrews penned this the Lord Jesus was already resurrected and not physically ministering on the earth.

Yes; the Lord had already resurrected. Hebrews 2:3,4 says "how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

"to us by those who heard Him" seems pretty definitive.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So "has spoken to us" meant something that was in writing, written down and passed down to all the Christians. This was the Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and Revelation - The New Testament.

Actually the epistle to the Hebrews doesn't quote the gospels or Paul's epistles. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes the OT, profusely. So "has spoken to us" meant the written words of the prophets, confirmed (orally? in writing?) by those who orally heard him. Probably at the time of "Hebrews" much of the NT wasn't yet in writing, and much of it which was written was in very limited circulation. What was in widespread circulation was what we call "OT" today.

None of this really changes your argument, though.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am a card-carrying evangelical, and that means that I believe in inerrancy of the Bible.

Of course denying all the evidence for errancy. There's no evidence for inerrancy. We have no autographs to prove it, either way. Inerrancy is just wishing it is so.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course denying all the evidence for errancy. There's no evidence for inerrancy. We have no autographs to prove it, either way. Inerrancy is just wishing it is so.

Contrary to your evidentialist assumption, here the Bible is assumed true, evidence notwithstanding.

[OBW]

Harold,

You didn't read the rest of my post. I effectively dumped inerrancy as a useful term.

Read zeek's post (the one before yours). A different take on it than mine, but insightful.

The Bible is a collection of narratives and writings concerning God covering some centuries of time. It is lousy as a detailed history or as a science text. But it reveals God. But it does not do that very well unless the Spirit enlightens it. Then and only then can the term "inerrant" even begin to be discussed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Harold,

You didn't read the rest of my post. I effectively dumped inerrancy as a useful term.

Read zeek's post (the one before yours). A different take on it than mine, but insightful.

The Bible is a collection of narratives and writings concerning God covering some centuries of time. It is lousy as a detailed history or as a science text. But it reveals God. But it does not do that very well unless the Spirit enlightens it. Then and only then can the term "inerrant" even begin to be discussed.

I love the Bible, and I'm in it everyday. I'm just not idealistic about its origins. Much of it came out of the Bronze age, with the very limited science of their day, and limited understanding of the universe, compared to today.

And yes, you can get around those limitations by claiming that the Bible is a revelation from God, so it has God's unlimited cosmic knowledge in it.

There's many ways to take the Bible ... but few can actually be proven ... cuz we can't time travel back to see what actually happened.

And yes, bro Mike, I really appreciated your take on inerrancy.

If the Bible opens you up to God, it's done its job.

Writing has only been around since circa 3500 BCE. So does that mean God was unable to communicate with man before the advent of writing?

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

Writing has only been around since circa 3500 BCE. So does that mean God was unable to communicate with man before the advent of writing?

Ever heard of speaking? I suspect you're being disingenuous.
Writing is the record of what God has spoken, the Bible is that record in one form or another--either in the words of God verbatim or through, for example, the Acts where there is a lot of history mixed in with God's word.

How do you understand Hebrews 11:1?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I love the Bible, and I'm in it everyday. I'm just not idealistic about its origins. Much of it came out of the Bronze age, with the very limited science of their day, and limited understanding of the universe, compared to today.

This bronze age talk is bunk. I know kids on "smart" phones texting and tweeting 1000x a day who can't even communicate with an adult, yet are convinced they are so "smart." How has human nature changed from 5,000 years ago? To say that God's word is out-of-date in the 21st century is foolishness.

That's like W. Lee saying all of Christianity is stuck using horse and buggy but his "new way" is like taking a Boeing 747.

Limited science? We have today millions of doctors and scholars who are convinced that you evolved from a monkey. I'm not discrediting learning, but one can be steeped in it without an ounce of common sense wisdom from God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's positive counterpart is perfection. Inerrancy requires perfect knowledge and perfect execution.

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course denying all the evidence for errancy. There's no evidence for inerrancy. We have no autographs to prove it, either way. Inerrancy is just wishing it is so.

Inerrant means without error, but you have made the definition to include perfection. By raising the standard to that level, then, by your definition, none of scripture should be trusted, because we have no "proof." But your standard is a false standard. Biblical scholars of textual criticism never use your approach. Where is the error that would make the text "errant?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Inerrant means without error, but you have made the definition to include perfection. By raising the standard to that level, then, by your definition, none of scripture should be trusted, because we have no "proof." But your standard is a false standard. Biblical scholars of textual criticism never use your approach. Where is the error that would make the text "errant?"

I asserted perfection not Awareness. Inerrancy means 100% accuracy, right? How is that different from perfection? On the other hand, I did not assert that evidence is required. Awareness did. He did not stipulate that perfection is necessary, so I don't see where you got that. I am accepting inerrancy as a given on this forum. What is required to answer these questions is a theology of inspiration. According to the testimony here so far, WL did not supply one. As I recall, the closest he came was in his discussions of the "principle of incarnation."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I asserted perfection not Awareness. Inerrancy means 100% accuracy, right? How is that different from perfection? On the other hand, I did not assert that evidence is required. Awareness did. He did not stipulate that perfection is necessary, so I don't see where you got that. I am accepting inerrancy as a given on this forum. What is required to answer these questions is a theology of inspiration. According to the testimony here so far, WL did not supply one. As I recall, the closest he came was in his discussions of the "principle of incarnation."

I quoted two posts and somewhat put them together.

I don't see inerrant as 100% "accurate." For me inerrant is without errors, that is, substantive errors which seriously affect our faith. That's why I ask where are these errors that cause the Bible we have to be not inerrant? The demands of so-called "perfection" are even more unnecessary.

For example, if numerous manuscripts use the aorist tense and others use the perfect tense for a certain verb in a certain verse, is that an error? Is this verse no longer inerrant? It appeared to me like awareness felt it would be errant, since we don't have the original autograph to decide which tense is correct. By your using the word "perfection," apparently you also would see errancy in my proposed verse.

How do you define a "theology of inspiration."

[aron]

Originally Posted by james73

what I find poor in the LC is, when people come to read the bible together, they don't let the spirit speak to them, it's the footnotes and the Life Study doing all the talking.

Revelation (i.e. the spirit speaking) in the LC is limited to seeing the truth as revealed by the Ministry. In a meeting you'd hear, "I really didn't understand this point in the outline: how could X be the same as Y? Then I prayed over it and I realized the brother is right -- X really does equal Y!" And everyone else would be like, "Ayyyymmaaannne".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am a card-carrying evangelical, and that means that I believe in inerrancy of the Bible.

The problem is with the meaning of inerrancy. As long as there is unambiguous text that says simply one very straightforward thing in clear, unambiguous words, then the proof of inerrancy would be easy. We would see that everything it says is simply true.

But it is not so easy. While there are unambiguous statements, it is not all so clear. That means we have to analyze and interpret. And if we get competing interpretations (which has happened over and over) then who is right.

Thank God it is not easy! How boring would life be if everything in the Bible were unambiguous.

Originally Posted by OBW

I believe that scripture is inerrant in terms of its revelation of God. But to arrive at that revelation, there is a lot that could be said with different words or in different ways that would arrive at the same revelation.

Then you don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Part of that belief is that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden in these words. To think that there are other ways to write the words that end up in the same revelation is to miss the wisdom and knowledge hidden in this way.

Originally Posted by OBW

What is fully errant is our insistence on over-analysis of the flavors of words used to say otherwise straightforward things. People come and add their overlays and read through their foggy glasses and do stupid things like read "God is spirit" and conclude that it means that God is the Holy Spirit. Or read "became a quickening (life-giving) spirit" and insist that it must mean the Holy Spirit because there is only one spirit...

You cannot have Bible commentary without the possibility that some of this commentary will be in error. Giving man a free will gives him the opportunity to make mistakes. Once mistakes are made, say with the "Ground of the Church" doctrine it requires a painstaking effort to clean up the mess these errors make. It is all part of the multifaceted grace of God to us.

Originally Posted by OBW

How does going through this help with the "inerrancy" issue? Maybe it doesn't. But I think that maybe it does. I believe that the things that matter are not mired in those problems. And while there may be a correct answer for many of the disagreements, they mostly do not matter.

If that were true then the epistles' of Paul "mostly do not matter".

Originally Posted by OBW

But the revelation of God is accurate. The primary directions to the church and to the Christian are accurate. The only problem is the mess that we have made it into...

As a teacher I originally thought that the students would just listen to me, get the clear message, and "learn". Since then I have discovered that kids don't learn that way, they learn by doing. I am much more like a band director now and the students do 90% of the work, and we get much better results. The kids think they understand, act on that understanding, learn immediately that they don't understand and then are forced to deal with that. How would we know we were in error in our understanding of the Bible if those teachings didn't result in a mess. It is the mess that makes us realize the error. Also, how can we say it doesn't matter when these errors result in a mess?

Originally Posted by OBW

Similarly, scripture is inerrant. What is full or error is our interpretation. Is our majoring on the minors. Is the insistence on the optionals. Is emphasizing and deemphasizing based on our preferences.

The end result is that while scripture is inerrant, the fact is almost irrelevant as long as we keep insisting on our erroneous interpretations. It is almost better to insist upon just reading it and letting it speak for itself. Sure. Get some background on the culture, the times, the events that lead to the writing (such as with the Psalms). But ultimately, they should mean what they say, not something else.

You have the cart before the horse. Believing that scripture is inerrant is what makes us realize our interpretations are erroneous when they make mess. Once we have a mess it is very difficult to figure out what caused it, where the error is, because we have previously assumed there was no error. However, once you discard the belief that scripture is inerrant you can dismiss the errors as a result of scripture and not your erroneous interpretation. This opens the door to dismiss scripture, as WL did when he pooh poohed the idea of righteousness in Psalms, James, and Proverbs.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then you don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Part of that belief is that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are hidden in these words. To think that there are other ways to write the words that end up in the same revelation is to miss the wisdom and knowledge hidden in this way.

I don't believe the Scripture every makes the claim that there is no better way of saying what it says.

Inerrant doesn't mean there is not a better way of saying something. It means the way it reads is the way God chose to say it to us. We might actually stumble upon a better way of saying something, but we wouldn't know it because we'd have no way of validating that. Although we do often know that a modern rendering is more understandable and thus "better."

But I agree with you that we assume Scripture is inerrant because that's the only way to expose our own errors of interpretation. If we presume our interpretation is better than Scripture we are on shifting sand.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't believe the Scripture every makes the claim that there is no better way of saying what it says.

Inerrant doesn't mean there is not a better way of saying something. It means the way it reads is the way God chose to say it to us. We might actually stumble upon a better way of saying something, but we wouldn't know it because we'd have no way of validating that. Although we do often know that a modern rendering is more understandable and thus "better."

But I agree with you that we assume Scripture is inerrant because that's the only way to expose our own errors of interpretation. If we presume our interpretation is better than Scripture we are on shifting sand.

The scripture never uses the word "inerrant" concerning itself. Since that word is defined differently by different people why don't we stick to what the scripture does claim for itself.

Colossians 2:3 "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge".

Since Jesus is the incarnated word I think it is fair to interpret this as referring to the scripture. If this said "many treasures of wisdom" then I would agree with you. But wisdom includes how something is done, not just the finished product. After all isn't Henry Ford's wisdom expressed in how he built the cars? So then, if "all" the treasures of wisdom are hidden in this word, then it is not merely the finished revelation but also how we got to the finished revelation, "every jot and tittle".

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Colossians 2:3 "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge".

Since Jesus is the incarnated word I think it is fair to interpret this as referring to the scripture.

Mmmm, I would have to disagree. "Fair?" I would have substituted "wishful thinking."

Sorry, I don't buy it at all.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Mmmm, I would have to disagree. "Fair?" I would have substituted "wishful thinking."

Sorry, I don't buy it at all.

Just so we are all clear, you are saying that "all the treasures of wisdom" are not hidden in the written word. This verse refers to Jesus Christ but not to the scripture.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If that were true then the epistles' of Paul "mostly do not matter".

You really didn't understand what I was saying. I state that so many of the variants of understanding are really not that important and you conclude that to imply that the epistles of Paul don't matter?

What kind of stupidity is that?

There have been so many posts since #1 in which I clearly stated contrary to that and you say that now. What a joke!!

Do you just like creating controversies that do not exist? Putting words into others' mouths so that you can deride them?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You have the cart before the horse. Believing that scripture is inerrant is what makes us realize our interpretations are erroneous when they make mess. Once we have a mess it is very difficult to figure out what caused it, where the error is, because we have previously assumed there was no error. However, once you discard the belief that scripture is inerrant you can dismiss the errors as a result of scripture and not your erroneous interpretation. This opens the door to dismiss scripture, as WL did when he pooh poohed the idea of righteousness in Psalms, James, and Proverbs.

You miss the difference between "inerrancy" as often espoused and "God breathed" as the scripture declares of itself.

Lee didn't even believe in "God breathed" concerning James. Oh, he said that God put it there as an example of error. But that is a dodge. He really wanted to exclude it from the canon of scripture. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, so he came up with that excuse. Same with the Psalms (or many of them).

Backing away from the extreme claims that "inerrancy" puts on scripture does not diminish them in the least.

And backing down from the extremes of inerrancy does not increase errors or keep us from realizing our ridiculous misinterpretations. It would seem that the most common places where inerrancy is proclaimed the loudest is in conjunction with errant declarations as to what that inerrant scripture means. In effect, it is too often used as a descriptor of the interpretation of scripture rather than of the scripture itself.

I agree that the scripture itself is without error. But saying that does not make my favorite interpretation correct. Neither does it help to prove that it is either correct or incorrect. It only declares that the words from which I/they got the interpretation are, themselves, without error.

[Cal]

We believe the Scripture is without error. The next step is to define "error." Clearly it cannot mean that every quote is recorded exactly as it was made, because the same incidents are quoted differently in the different Gospels.

That, perhaps, gives us some clue as how to regard the Scripture. You can created doctrines out of the differences, as with Lee's baffling kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God dichotomy. Or you can do what I prefer to do--take it as a sign to not quibble over words, but to step back and get the bigger picture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We believe the Scripture is without error. The next step is to define "error." Clearly it cannot mean that every quote is recorded exactly as it was made, because the same incidents are quoted differently in the different Gospels.

That, perhaps, gives us some clue as how to regard the Scripture. You can created doctrines out of the differences, as with Lee's baffling kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God dichotomy. Or you can do what I prefer to do--take it as a sign to not quibble over words, but to step back and get the bigger picture.

I definitely agree with this.

It's like the old King James Version that added the words "and fasting," in italics to one verse in the gospels (Mark 9.29.) None of the manuscripts included it, and neither did any good translations. But that never stopped those diehard James'ers from spewing out condemnation on all those "corrupted" translations which "took fasting out of the Bible."

Another one I like is in I Cor 13.5 in the KJV, "love is not easily provoked." The KJV translators added the word "easily" to their translation, reportedly because King James had such a bad temper. This verse is for you buddy! There is no basis in the Greek for the modifier "easily."

By the way, after some recent forum happenings, I propose we make this "errant" verse translation our theme verse for the day. Now let's all pray-read this verse together.

Love is not easily provoked!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We believe the Scripture is without error. The next step is to define "error." Clearly it cannot mean that every quote is recorded exactly as it was made, because the same incidents are quoted differently in the different Gospels.

That, perhaps, gives us some clue as how to regard the Scripture. You can created doctrines out of the differences, as with Lee's baffling kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God dichotomy. Or you can do what I prefer to do--take it as a sign to not quibble over words, but to step back and get the bigger picture.

In PM I told Ohio about my cousin here. For decades he was a deacon in a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

So he was so gung ho about the Bible he took Koine Greek classes to read it in "the original" Greek.

After learning Greek we were talking one day and he told me he could no longer say that the Bible is inerrant.

But one day, in Sunday School class, there was asked for all hands that believed the Bible is inerrant, and he raised his hand, along with everyone else.

He lied. Cuz there's social pressure in his church to hold to inerrancy.

Ohio responded with a question. He asked what my cousin meant by inerrancy.

So this morning I called my cousin to ask him.

In a nutshell he said : Is the Bible inerrant? Yes. Is the Bible we have today inerrant? No.

He went on to say that, he believed that the autograph copies were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And that they were inerrant. But the second copy of the autograph, was not inspired of Spirit and wasn't inerrant ... and so on down the line, thru all the manuscript copies, up to today.

In other words, the scribes that copied from copy to copy were not inspired of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the copies weren't inspired, so the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

He used to be a KJV, Textus Receptus, only believer. But after being able to read it in Greek he thinks the KJV is a bad translation.

But he did say that in spite of the errancy, the message from God still comes thru.

And he told me he didn't lie in that Sunday School class. Because he does believe the Bible is inerrant. He just didn't tell them that the Bible they did have, in their hands, is errant.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

. . . a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

Wine only?

Are you sure?

I thought Southern Baptists, by definition, argued that "wine" was really grape juice everywhere it is found in scripture.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

In PM I told Ohio about my cousin here. For decades he was a deacon in a very conservative -- no pants, wine only, KJV only -- Southern Baptist church.

So he was so gung ho about the Bible he took Koine Greek classes to read it in "the original" Greek.

After learning Greek we were talking one day and he told me he could no longer say that the Bible is inerrant.

But one day, in Sunday School class, there was asked for all hands that believed the Bible is inerrant, and he raised his hand, along with everyone else.

He lied. Cuz there's social pressure in his church to hold to inerrancy.

Ohio responded with a question. He asked what my cousin meant by inerrancy.

So this morning I called my cousin to ask him.

In a nutshell he said : Is the Bible inerrant? Yes. Is the Bible we have today inerrant? No.

He went on to say that, he believed that the autograph copies were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And that they were inerrant. But the second copy of the autograph, was not inspired of Spirit and wasn't inerrant ... and so on down the line, thru all the manuscript copies, up to today.

In other words, the scribes that copied from copy to copy were not inspired of the Holy Spirit, and therefore the copies weren't inspired, so the Bible we have today is not inerrant.

He used to be a KJV, Textus Receptus, only believer. But after being able to read it in Greek he thinks the KJV is a bad translation.

But he did say that in spite of the errancy, the message from God still comes thru.

And he told me he didn't lie in that Sunday School class. Because he does believe the Bible is inerrant. He just didn't tell them that the Bible they did have, in their hands, is errant.

Interesting post awar. So your cousin has decided where to put his faith and that is on the original Bible manuscripts. Or, at least the Bible is an item in the sphere of his faith. I imagine there are some here who see things much like your cousin.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You really didn't understand what I was saying. I state that so many of the variants of understanding are really not that important and you conclude that to imply that the epistles of Paul don't matter?

What kind of stupidity is that?

There have been so many posts since #1 in which I clearly stated contrary to that and you say that now. What a joke!!

Do you just like creating controversies that do not exist? Putting words into others' mouths so that you can deride them?

You miss the difference between "inerrancy" as often espoused and "God breathed" as the scripture declares of itself.

Lee didn't even believe in "God breathed" concerning James. Oh, he said that God put it there as an example of error. But that is a dodge. He really wanted to exclude it from the canon of scripture. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, so he came up with that excuse. Same with the Psalms (or many of them).

Backing away from the extreme claims that "inerrancy" puts on scripture does not diminish them in the least.

And backing down from the extremes of inerrancy does not increase errors or keep us from realizing our ridiculous misinterpretations. It would seem that the most common places where inerrancy is proclaimed the loudest is in conjunction with errant declarations as to what that inerrant scripture means. In effect, it is too often used as a descriptor of the interpretation of scripture rather than of the scripture itself.

I agree that the scripture itself is without error. But saying that does not make my favorite interpretation correct. Neither does it help to prove that it is either correct or incorrect. It only declares that the words from which I/they got the interpretation are, themselves, without error.

You cannot expose a ridiculous misinterpretation without engaging in the reasoning. If someone derives a ridiculous interpretation based on a greek translation then you must address that, if they derive a ridiculous interpretation based on "context" or semantics, or reference to Plato, or Cargo cults, or the Bronze age then you must address that.

So then if you think that a doctrine, such as "The ground of the church" is in error then you must walk through the way in which this teaching was derived from scripture and expose the error, regardless of how much you dislike it. You cannot mud wrestle without getting dirty.

Now if you don't think that teachings like "MOTA" or "Ground of the Church" warrant you getting dirt on your hands so be it. But dismissing the battle because you think they have blown some minor detail out of proportion and we shouldn't parse the word of the Bible like that will have no effect on helping those deceived. Like Paul said "I have become all things to all people".

When I was in the LRC I fellowshipped with Christians all the time and I wanted them to either point out the errors in "the ground of the church" doctrine or else respond to it.

Your post reminds me of the Lord complaining that the Pharisees would strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. He didn't condemn them for straining out the gnat, He said they should do that, only He condemned them for swallowing the camel.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

However I get what bro Z is trying to do. Seem's to me he's just trying another tactic to refute me, who hold's that the scripture is not inerrant.

And ya gotta give it to him that he's thinking and trying, to defend the scripture.

I agree with what you have said, awareness, except that "the scripture is not inerrant." You have never pointed out errors in the scriptures, only discrepancies in the manuscripts. For me there is a world of difference. You keep making that claim, but have always sideswiped the points made to the contrary.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have never pointed out errors in the scriptures, only discrepancies in the manuscripts.

To the young earth creationist, the earth was absolutely created in the seven days recorded in Genesis 1. Yet it is most likely that there were long and overlapping eras in which those events occurred. To declare "inerrant," you have to assert that one way of reading Genesis chapter 1 is THE WAY to read it. That way is the only inerrant way. Any others are in error.

So . . . is it 7 days (well, 6) or is it millions of years? One is inerrant and the other is error.

Unless it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then the claims of "inerrancy" down to the specific words used becomes pointless or even ridiculous.

And if that is the case and you still want to use the term, then you have a slightly less inerrant version of inerrancy.

But I like a scripture that leads us to God and Christ, not a scripture that is so perfect that it is inerrant, and we can then fight over what that means. Many doctrinal statements are more certain about the inerrancy of scripture than they are about the person of Christ.

They have it backward.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But I like a scripture that leads us to God and Christ, not a scripture that is so perfect that it is inerrant, and we can then fight over what that means. Many doctrinal statements are more certain about the inerrancy of scripture than they are about the person of Christ.

And herein lies the essence of the word of God.

I have long been convinced that all the "inerrancy" talk really is designed to discredit the value of God's word. What persuades me is not the painstaking way the scribes have passed down copies of the original autographs, but how Jesus Himself and the Apostles treated and quoted the scriptures.

God's word enables us to know about Him and to know Him, which is perhaps the most significant feature of the new covenant. The scriptures also provide us with excellent history, wisdom, song, etc. but they are all secondary to the primary goal of God's word. Jesus says, "be it unto you according to your faith." If you want to find flaws in the scripture, or to find "flaws" in God Himself, then you will indeed. God seems to have had little intention in merely providing us with a perfect and inerrant book.

Jesus Christ is the Logos of God. He is the message of God. It is interesting to note that the Greek word logos comes from lego, which is to gather, to assemble, to enumerate a collection, a list, a catalog, a narration. And so it has been with the word of God. The Bible was a growing collection of writings enumerating the knowing of God, a narration growing in detail and scope, for whosoever will to know God. To truncate the list, by supposedly knowing God as father Abraham did without some book, is to "truncate" the knowledge of the Logos of God.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have long been convinced that all the "inerrancy" talk really is designed to discredit the value of God's word. What persuades me is not the painstaking way the scribes have passed down copies of the original autographs, but how Jesus Himself and the Apostles treated and quoted the scriptures.

And how is it that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the scriptures? Was it with painstaking accuracy? or did they get the meaning of it by different words? Sometimes in such a manner that the original source is occasionally debated or questioned.

I didn't start out to respond to that question, but to put something here that related to how we quote scripture. I was reading a quote in another thread that went as follows:

Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

I was struck by the fact that we either go to great extremes to say it exactly like one of the translations, or we simply copy it from some source without considering how it reads.

This is not a slam on anyone. We all do it. But when is the last time that you "shew" anyone anything? That you "knowest" anything? Or referred to someone else as "thee" or "thou"?

We treat the words of scripture as it sacred in their very form. We fight with understanding strange words (and often misunderstand them) because we unwittingly are stuck in the words rather than in the passages. I know that there was this constant battle with Steward on the other thread concerning the KJV, or more correctly the "received text" versions versus others.

While I wouldn't suggest trying to devise doctrine from them, the best reading is often the more strange paraphrases like The Message because it forces you to see the larger discussion and quit looking for the comfortable collection of specific words. It is nearly impossible to discover where certain things are by chapter and verse because that is not how the original was devised. Too often can't find a specific verse, even by content, but you can find the entirety of the passage to say what the specific verse, plus its context said.

I listen to a couple of different theology podcasts on occasion. Both are evangelical-based, and one is specifically an apologetics podcast. I tend to believe pretty consistently with both of them. But I too often find the importance of the things they cover (and that I believe) to be much lower than what they give them.

For example, one was covering the somewhat recent defection of the man who was the president of some evangelical society (think academics and theologians, not preachers and ministers) to become Roman Catholic. There are three different people who participate in discussions on this podcast and at one point they asked one who had been somewhat silent what he thought about a particular thing. His response was that, while he might have plenty to say about the practices of the RCC, he was certain that many of those following that way are genuine believers (and therefore Christians). While there might be many questions to raise, in his mind it was not about abandoning the faith, but in understanding it differently.

In other words, if you believe in Jesus, the fact that you say "Justification" and mean the entirety of the process from conversion through sanctification, or mean only the process of initial conversion is not a matter of faith. It is a doctrine that is unable to save or refuse salvation.

And it is too often in the process of fighting over these kinds of things that "inerrancy" comes into the discussion. The fight over the accuracy of scripture is seldom over its overall correctness relative to what it is trying to say, but its specific correctness within a specific interpretation so that it says a specific thing that is not otherwise definitely so.

So, in this way, I disagree with Ohio that the discussion of inerrancy is "designed to discredit the value of God's word." I think it is mostly designed to turn the narrative writings of centuries-old cultures into scientifically provable treatises on anything that is mentioned. Or insist that it is otherwise metaphorical and not intended to represent scientific fact. And the result of insisting on inerrancy is that any particular view becomes tenuous since just one verifiable fact that contradicts is evidence of error, therefore scripture becomes entirely not inerrant. That is the position that Christians put the Bible into by their insistence on inerrancy.

But if the Bible is designed to speak to the people it was written to so that they understood their creator and God within their world-view, then the fact that it was written with scientific errors would be expected since no one would have understood it if it had been scientifically accurate. The science was not the point. God was.

Today, we read the same text, now centuries ancient, not to discover how scientifically foolish those people were, but to see the same God. And to discover His working in this very different age. The Bible, as written, has much scientific and historical error. But it is irrelevant.

Someone pointed out that many of the genealogies are written according to a pattern. From one major person to another was always a certain number of generations (no matter how many generations there actually were). There is an ongoing debate concerning the precise time of Egyptian slavery for this reason. But the precise length of time of the slavery was never the point and never relevant. That they were slaves was. That it had been about some length of time might have been. That some genealogy was accurately describing every generation from person A to person B was not.

God is still revealed consistent with the truth whether the genealogy is complete or partial. The revelation of God is true whether Kings and Chronicles got the chronology of kings spot-on. It is true whether Paul was really just expressing his opinion or God was writing a hard and fast rule that has to be followed.

And how do you follow a rule that doesn't speak against slavery, but declares that you must love your slaves as you love yourself. That you must serve them within the context of the church. And on and on.

It isn't by declaring more and more "this is exactly how it is" rules but by recognizing the principles. Obedience. Faith. Love. Righteousness (and a hunger for it). Service, not ruling.

Last (in an already too long post), I work in tax. One of the continually frustrating things about tax work is that there are continually more and more complex regulations. And many of them could have been written so much more easily. But the consideration is that if you make them too simple, there will be uncertainties and then everything will go to court. But that will only be true for a while. As long as the regulations are specific and complex, they are never going to cover everything. So there will continually be facts that fall outside the rules that will go to court. And the courts will decide differently than what the government wants. So they will return to write yet another regulation to cover yet another specific set of facts.

And on it goes.

But the Bible is written. The "edict" in Revelation is probably not speaking about the whole of the canon of scripture. But we treat it as so (and probably rightly). My observation is that those who are busily nit-picking the words of scripture are seeking more rules to put on people. Or looking for loopholes. The only ones suggesting that the Bible really supports the continuance of any kind of slavery are the nit-pickers. Those who read it as it to find God see that it can never support slavery where it is not already found. And even where it is found, it has to affect how it is carried out until it eventually disappears.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

And how is it that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the scriptures? Was it with painstaking accuracy? or did they get the meaning of it by different words? Sometimes in such a manner that the original source is occasionally debated or questioned.

So, in this way, I disagree with Ohio that the discussion of inerrancy is "designed to discredit the value of God's word." I think it is mostly designed to turn the narrative writings of centuries-old cultures into scientifically provable treatises on anything that is mentioned. Or insist that it is otherwise metaphorical and not intended to represent scientific fact. And the result of insisting on inerrancy is that any particular view becomes tenuous since just one verifiable fact that contradicts is evidence of error, therefore scripture becomes entirely not inerrant. That is the position that Christians put the Bible into by their insistence on inerrancy.

I'm honestly ... frankly speaking ... not exactly sure how you are disagreeing with me.

But, back to your initial question. Jesus often did not quote from the Hebrew text, rather He used the Greek Septuagint translation o the Hebrew scriptures. I'm sure that ticked off the Scribes and Pharisees.

The writer of Hebrews did the same.