Is The Bible Inerrant?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Many of Jesus' contemporaries thought that the messiah would vanquish the Romans and deliver the kingdom back to the nation of Israel. Jesus did not do that in a literal sense. So, if he was the messiah he was messiah in a different sense than they expected. Of course, the ones who later were called Christians were the one's who "got" the sense in which Jesus IS the messiah. The questions of those who did not accept Jesus as the messiah are part of the putatively inerrant New Testament historical record. According to the definition of inerrancy I quoted. "4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, ... about the events of world history. "

Okay, I'm going to go ahead with my first instinct of what the point of this post was.

Basically you are saying that if any record claims to be inerrant and it records errors made by others then it is in fact errant.

Such an assertion is ridiculous, of course.

Example: A newspaper reports a story about a terrorist group which claimed it placed a bomb in a mall. The paper quotes some of the people in the mall as saying, "We don't believe there is bomb in the mall." The bomb explodes. Therefore the newspaper is in error because it reported the erroneous declaration of the disbelieving people.

This is zeek's point. I think. I wish it wasn't.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I'm going to go ahead with my first instinct of what the point of this post was.

Basically you are saying that if any record claims to be inerrant and it records errors made by others then it is in fact errant.

Such an assertion is ridiculous, of course.

Example: A newspaper reports a story about a terrorist group which claimed it placed a bomb in a mall. The paper quotes some of the people in the mall as saying, "We don't believe there is bomb in the mall." The bomb explodes. Therefore the newspaper is in error because it reported the erroneous declaration of the disbelieving people.

This is zeek's point. I think. I wish it wasn't because...well...you know.

Anyway, anything else anybody? Because if this is as good as it gets we are wasting our time.

No you're way off. I'm saying that Jesus' question "Who do people say I am...who do you say I am" is itself Biblical. To reject the question is to reject part of the inerrant Bible. It would be a significant- red- letter- words- -of Jesus part. If you believe the Bible is inerrant, how can you reject the question? I have never questioned the inerrancy of the Bible on this thread. I even supplied you with a detailed definition of inerrancy when no one else did. You're welcome. I have asked how it is inerrant because I don't know.

The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.

So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.

So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.

Jesus fulfilled literally hundreds of prophecies. Numerous and detailed descriptions in the O.T. were provided by God so that it was unambiguously clear to all of the house of Israel who their Messiah would be. The problem was never on His side or the scriptures' side. It was the unbelieving and proud Jewish leaders who rejected their Messiah! They said to Pilate, "we have no king but Caesar!"

The works that Jesus did made this absolutely, unambiguously apparent to the Jews. Lazarus was dead for days, stinking in the tomb, and then Jesus raised him from the dead. Everybody in Jerusalem knew about this. The Jews then plotted to kill Lazarus, rather than to believe in the Son of Man, their long-promised Messiah. It was never some simple misunderstanding that caused the Jewish leaders to misidentify the Messiah, and subsequently coerce Pilate to have him crucified. It was their evil heart of unbelief.

I expect the Bible is inerrant differently than the way you would like it to be.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus fulfilled literally hundreds of prophecies. Numerous and detailed descriptions in the O.T. were provided by God so that it was unambiguously clear to all of the house of Israel who their Messiah would be. The problem was never on His side or the scriptures' side. It was the unbelieving and proud Jewish leaders who rejected their Messiah! They said to Pilate, "we have no king but Caesar!"

The works that Jesus did made this absolutely, unambiguously apparent to the Jews. Lazarus was dead for days, stinking in the tomb, and then Jesus raised him from the dead. Everybody in Jerusalem knew about this. The Jews then plotted to kill Lazarus, rather than to believe in the Son of Man, their long-promised Messiah. It was never some simple misunderstanding that caused the Jewish leaders to misidentify the Messiah, and subsequently coerce Pilate to have him crucified. It was their evil heart of unbelief.

I expect the Bible is inerrant differently than the way you would like it to be.

So Lazarus was prophesied in the the OT? Please show me where. How many people witnessed the raising of Lazarus? I'm surprised it didn't get in the history books outside of the Gospel of John. Great deed that it was even the other Gospels don't mention it. Nor does Paul. It seems it was a relatively hidden event, historically speaking.

Many of the prophecies were fulfilled in a hidden or paradoxical ways. For example, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but in a hidden way so that most thought he was born in Nazareth.

Messiah was applied to Jesus by the disciples. But many of the connotations of the term went beyond his actual appearance as I have already noted. Jesus himself realized this so he prohibited his disciples to use the term with reference to him. Again it was a secret hidden fulfillment.

Same thing with the term Son of man. The son of man was supposed to appear in power and glory. But Jesus appeared in a lowly way.

Likewise, the term Son of David. The Son of david was supposed to be an earthly king, a political leader. Jesus was not that.

Son of God was a pagan concept. The Jews had difficult with the term because of that. When it is used in the OT it is applied to angels who are the monotheistic equivalent of the pagan pantheon. If you don't believe me, check G. H. Pember.

The title kyrios was applied to the mystery gods who, like the resurrected Jesus of Paul were objects of mystical union. So the term was transformed when it was applied to Jesus who was, in the first place, a real man.

Finally, the term Logos came from Greek philosophy where it signified the cosmic principle of creation. It's application to Jesus was paradoxical because Logos was a universal principle whereas Jesus was a concrete human being. This mystery is expressed in the great paradox of Christianity: the Word became Flesh.

All of this takes place in the brilliant, mysterious inerrant New Testament where the ancient symbols are transformed to serve the new being who is Jesus as the Christ. Initially only a few believed because he wasn't what the majority of Jews expected when they thought of the Messiah. That's why Paul called him a "stumbling block." Surely you are aware of this.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

All of this takes place in the brilliant, mysterious inerrant New Testament where the ancient symbols are transformed to serve the new being who is Jesus as the Christ. Initially only a few believed because he wasn't what the majority of Jews expected when they thought of the Messiah. That's why Paul called him a "stumbling block." Surely you are aware of this.

The OT also prophesies Christ as the suffering sacrifice who was "bruised for our iniquities." Missing this was not the fault of the OT, but of the Jews' selective reading of it.

This is similar to people today who only choose to see the verses describing the loving Jesus, and ignore the ones describing the righteous, judging Jesus.

The lesson is clear. If you superimpose your vision of Christ over the Bible's, you miss the real Christ. This should be a strong heads-up to Harold, who apparently thinks he can get to know God sufficiently without the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The lesson is clear. If you superimpose your vision of Christ over the Bible's, you miss the real Christ.

If anything deserved an entire meeting in which we contemplated the words of a man, it would be for a phrase like that one. And then we turn immediately back to our focus on Christ.

[OBW]

I was scanning through the multitude of posts in the last two days and the following three snippets set-up my general feelings on the subject. They may not entirely square with any of the people I quoted. But here goes:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't find the question of inerrancy very interesting because the Bible doesn't make such a claim for itself.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is simple, proving that the Bible is inerrant is probably not something that can be done with one observation, or two, or even a thousand.

However, a single observation of an error made by the Bible would disprove the theory.

Originally Posted by awareness

Inerrantism is just one way to use the Bible. And it can be misused and dangerous.

I started with Igzy because he has put it where it belongs — outside the discussion of the self-proclaimed attributes of scripture. The most that it says is that it is the breath of God, and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

And what is righteousness if there is no unrighteousness against which to compare and contrast.

ZNP is right. Proving the status as inerrant is a classic case of negative research. In legal research, you think you have something so you start looking for anything that would contradict so you can either adjust your thinking or argue a difference in facts. But when you are finding nothing, there is always the nagging thought that you just haven't looked quited long enough.

And one on-point case that stands in contradiction is all it will take to tear down your position.

But the real key is who is trumpeting the case of inerrancy? Mostly those who want to push a particular position. For example, young earth adherents use it to insist that the account in Genesis 1 must be a literal 6 days (plus rest). (I have no strong opinion on that particular subject, so don't ask.)

"The Bible is inerrant!" and it did not outlaw slavery. It just told slave owners and their slaves how to act toward one another.

"The Bible is inerrant!" and it clearly makes the slave owner and the slave of equal status, therefore it must stand in opposition to slavery.


It seems that people who are busy searching the scriptures for instructions for their own lives do not have the consideration of "inerrant." They accept that God has spoken and seek to find his speaking in the words written.

On the other side, people who are busy searching the scriptures for evidence on why they are right and others are wrong are quick to throw out declarations like "inerrant" and "biblical" as cloaks under which to hide their own errors from the prying eyes of those who might otherwise question them. They use the terms to force a particular understanding without any true consideration for the speaking of God.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The OT also prophesies Christ as the suffering sacrifice who was "bruised for our iniquities." Missing this was not the fault of the OT, but of the Jews' selective reading of it.

This is similar to people today who only choose to see the verses describing the loving Jesus, and ignore the ones describing the righteous, judging Jesus.

The lesson is clear. If you superimpose your vision of Christ over the Bible's, you miss the real Christ. This should be a strong heads-up to Harold, who apparently thinks he can get to know God sufficiently without the Bible.

Right it does. But, that passage was not usually associated with the messianic hope of most first century Jews. It was genius of the Spirit to make that association in the New Testament.

Yes we must see love and justice united in Jesus to get the full picture. i agree.

I don't agree with your last statements. The paradox of Jesus as God-man, the Word made flesh is the central theme of the New Testament. It is a huge problem for the human mind. As a result Christian tend to emphasize one aspect over the other. When one goes too far it can lead to heresy. Most heretics are never prosecuted as such by the church. "They are among us" as they say in the horror movies. Heaven forfend that you would think me one of them. But you would probably find me more on the human side than yourself I reckon.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't agree with your last statements. The paradox of Jesus as God-man, the Word made flesh is the central theme of the New Testament. It is a huge problem for the human mind.

I'm not sure this makes much sense. You would not have a concept of Jesus as God-man without the Bible. And you would push one side (God vs. man) or the other if the Bible didn't insist on balance. So in fact we are dependent on the Bible for an accurate and balanced picture of Christ. It's the people who leave the Bible that come up with these wacko versions of Christ. So I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible documents that not everyone accepted Jesus as the messiah. So, he must have been messiah in a way that was not unambiguously clear to everyone. If he had been a messiah in the way the jews expected him to be it would have been apparent to everyone. He would have overthrown the Romans and taken the throne of Israel. That didn't happen in any unambiguously apparent way. The inerrant bible records that such is the case.

This post assigns some responsibility to God that He did not adequately make the coming of the Messiah clear enough, or unambiguous enough, or unambiguously clear and apparent enough to His chosen people.

I disagreed with zeek's complaint, and cited a few obvious evidences. Then he replies with this ...

Originally Posted by zeek

So Lazarus was prophesied in the the OT? Please show me where. How many people witnessed the raising of Lazarus? I'm surprised it didn't get in the history books outside of the Gospel of John. Great deed that it was even the other Gospels don't mention it. Nor does Paul. It seems it was a relatively hidden event, historically speaking.

Is this a joke?

The raising of Lazarus from the dead occurred just days before His Palm Sunday walk from Bethany to Jerusalem, about two miles long. It was headlines news in all the Jerusalem papers. The whole city was buzzing about Lazarus being alive. This was one of Jesus' few visits to Judea, and it was His last.

Many of the Jews in Judea believed in Jesus because of this miracle. Immediately the Pharisees had to gather to take control. They knew if they did nothing, everyone would believe in Jesus. They knew that the Romans would come. Then the high priest concluded that Jesus must die to save the whole nation. Everything was according to the Father's plan.

zeek, you might try to dismiss the raising of Lazarus as an insignificant event, but it was absolutely instrumental to fulfill God's plan. From that day forward, the Pharisees were obsessed with killing Jesus. These chief priests also planned to murder Lazarus, because on account of him many Jews believed in Jesus.

As Jesus rode on that colt as the Prince of Peace into the city of Jerusalem, all the city went out to greet Him, crying "Hosanna, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel." The crowd went out to worship Jesus because they had heard He had just raised Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees then began to turn on one another saying, "you worthless good for nothing, behold, the whole world has gone after Him!" Less than one week later, He was crucified, saying, "It is finished!"

zeek, it is troublesome that you give so much credit to secular history and secular "scholarship," and often dismiss things related to the Bible as meany or insignificant.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was headlines news in all the Jerusalem papers. The whole city was buzzing about Lazarus being alive...

...As Jesus rode on that colt as the Prince of Peace into the city of Jerusalem, all the city went out to greet Him... The crowd went out to worship Jesus because they had heard He had just raised Lazarus from the dead...

For confirmation of this idea, see Luke 24:18 -- "The one whose name was Cleopas answered [Jesus], "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who doesn't know what happened there in the past few days?"

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This post assigns some responsibility to God that He did not adequately make the coming of the Messiah clear enough, or unambiguous enough, or unambiguously clear and apparent enough to His chosen people.

That's your inference. I did not say nor imply that.

The raising of Lazarus from the dead occurred just days before His Palm Sunday walk from Bethany to Jerusalem, about two miles long. It was headlines news in all the Jerusalem papers. The whole city was buzzing about Lazarus being alive. This was one of Jesus' few visits to Judea, and it was His last. Many of the Jews in Judea believed in Jesus because of this miracle. Immediately the Pharisees had to gather to take control. They knew if they did nothing, everyone would believe in Jesus. They knew that the Romans would come. Then the high priest concluded that Jesus must die to save the whole nation. Everything was according to the Father's plan.

All this info comes from one source that is not prophesied in the OT and is uncorroborated by any book in the Bible or out of it.

zeek, you might try to dismiss the raising of Lazarus as an insignificant event, but it was absolutely instrumental to fulfill God's plan. From that day forward, the Pharisees were obsessed with killing Jesus. These chief priests also planned to murder Lazarus, because on account of him many Jews believed in Jesus.

All this info comes from one source that is not prophesied in the OT and is uncorroborated by any contemporary document in the Bible or out of it.

As Jesus rode on that colt as the Prince of Peace into the city of Jerusalem, all the city went out to greet Him, crying "Hosanna, blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel." The crowd went out to worship Jesus because they had heard He had just raised Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees then began to turn on one another saying, "you worthless good for nothing, behold, the whole world has gone after Him!" Less than one week later, He was crucified, saying, "It is finished!"

See my last two comments. The event is unknown in the annals of history except for one book in the New Testament.

zeek, it is troublesome that you give so much credit to secular history and secular "scholarship," and often dismiss things related to the Bible as meany or insignificant.

I don't care if the scholar is secular or religious. Look at the scholarship, the science.

[Cal]

*** Moderator Note ***

Off-topic posts will be moved.

Further note. Posts which imply or state that the moderators of this board or anyone else on the board are not good Christians will also be moved.

If you don't like it, you can complain. And those posts will be moved as well.

Thank you.

[KSA]

Here is an interesting topic I missed. I found the book "Jesus Driven Life" very helpful in this regard.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by KSA

Here is an interesting topic I missed. I found the book "Jesus Driven Life" very helpful in this regard.

In what way was the book helpful to you on this issue?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, I am not questioning if Jesus is the messiah or not. I am noting that the way in which he is the messiah is different than the way that was expected. Perhaps the Bible is inerrant in a way different than people expect it to be.

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry. But I asked you to clarify the post and you seemed to be right there to do it and you didn't.

"The Bible is inerrant in a way people don't expect." Okay. God often works contrary to our expectations. That's fair.

So where do we go with that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry. But I asked you to clarify the post and you seemed to be right there to do it and you didn't.

"The Bible is inerrant in a way people don't expect." Okay. God often works contrary to our expectations. That's fair.

So where do we go with that?

Thank you. I didn't know what you were looking for until you spelled out what you thought I meant. I don't know where we go. Ohio and I seem to have digressed a bit. Someone might like to put us back on track.

[Cal]

Anything with a potential for good has a relatively equal potential for evil. Everything depends on how it is used. The Bible is no different. But that doesn't lessen it.

Please supply a scenario where God could give us his Word and it could not be used for evil. The only one thing I can think of is a situation where people are perfect. It's people that mess things up. That's because God created us with the potential for both good and evil.

But (surprise!) God's plan is with people. Becoming misanthropic (Harold) is tempting, but it denies the truth that God's desire is people.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

But (surprise!) God's plan is with people. Becoming misanthropic (Harold) is tempting, but it denies the truth that God's desire is people.

Harold are you misanthropic? Sounds serious, almost life-threatening, what's it mean? Is it contagious?

mis-an-throp-ic: marked by a hatred or contempt for humankind

Doesn't sound like you. Of course, these online relationships can be deceiving. I think you've just been burnt too many times to trust them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry. But I asked you to clarify the post and you seemed to be right there to do it and you didn't.

"The Bible is inerrant in a way people don't expect." Okay. God often works contrary to our expectations. That's fair.

So where do we go with that?

I don't know. It might be forbidden to talk about. So I'll shut up.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know. It might be forbidden to talk about. So I'll shut up.

That's never stopped you before.