Is The Bible Inerrant?

[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

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.

I would say that is a fair and accurate statement based on the claims of scripture itself.

Jesus is the Word. But the scripture is never declared as having the entire Word. Only imparting the truth and wisdom that God actually revealed.

It is, by nature, "word of God." But it does not claim to be all of it. It only claims to be breathed out by God. To be profitable for teaching with a goal to righteousness. To be worthy of our focus and even meditation.

[OBW]

I will start by pleading for mercy from the Topiq Nazis.

Someone recently pointed out that all of the religious texts for all the religions have heroes and saints that are entirely that — heroes and saints.

All except the Bible. In the Bible, if we omit Christ, there is no perfect or infallible person no matter how highly praised or used by the God on which the text dwells. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, the prophets, Peter, James, John, Thomas, Paul, Barnabas. None were entirely examples of perfection. But they were used by God.

Does anyone know of a contradiction to this claim? I have read little of any of them and cannot verify the accuracy of the claim.

Just an aside.

But an interesting one since whether or not we like the 19 articles of inerrancy, we declare the Bible to be the completely true written revelation of the one true God.

[UntoHim]

OBW, as the original Topiq Nazi, I hereby and duly absolve you of the sin of offtopiqness. Now go and post off topiq no more!

Someone recently pointed out that all of the religious texts for all the religions have heroes and saints that are entirely that — heroes and saints.

In thinking about this, it seems to me that the Local Church's religious text (The One Publication) have Nee and Lee as their heroes and saints. Watchman Nee, due to his status as movement founder and martyr, and Witness Lee, as the last Minister of the Age. (probably hasn't yet reached sainthood, but like Sister Teresa, is well on his way)

we declare the Bible to be the completely true written revelation of the one true God.

Most orthodox, evangelical churches, groups and denominations have such a declaration incorporated into their "Statement of Faith", however, as we have found out in this thread, there are some twists and turns and bumps in the road on our travels through "the completely true written revelation".

This is why, in my view, it is imperative, it is essential that Christians not jettison so many of the original creeds, statements of faith and polemics of the early church fathers, etc. Having been produced in the crucible of the earliest heresies, these provide some reasonable guidelines and ground rules to protect and preserve the most accurate and fullest presentation and interpretation of the Word of God.

It's easy to see now where Nee, and to a much greater extent Lee, went so far off track. Eventually the LC/LSM proclaimed "we stand apart from historical Christianity", and it is this stand that has wreaked so much untold damage and havoc in the movement over the years.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

All except the Bible. In the Bible, if we omit Christ, there is no perfect or infallible person no matter how highly praised or used by the God on which the text dwells. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, the prophets, Peter, James, John, Thomas, Paul, Barnabas. None were entirely examples of perfection. But they were used by God.

Does anyone know of a contradiction to this claim? I have read little of any of them and cannot verify the accuracy of the claim.

Some have said Joseph was without failure.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that is a fair and accurate statement based on the claims of scripture itself.

Jesus is the Word. But the scripture is never declared as having the entire Word. Only imparting the truth and wisdom that God actually revealed.

It is, by nature, "word of God." But it does not claim to be all of it. It only claims to be breathed out by God. To be profitable for teaching with a goal to righteousness. To be worthy of our focus and even meditation.

When did God stop breathing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God stop breathing?

Apples and oranges. The Bible is very clear that God is still speaking.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that DNA is a complete word on how to build a man while at the same time saying that man is still living, growing and maturing. In fact that maturation process is also written into the DNA.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God stop breathing?

What is He, a man? That He needs oxygen?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God stop breathing?

Cute.

But irrelevant.

This presumes that the meaning is that for God to breath, his "Word" must be conveyed to someone to write down.

"God breathed" or "the breath of God" in this context means that what we have as scripture is from God, not that every time he breathes, scripture becomes written.

I do note that some have stated that God is still speaking. And this is true. But so far I have not heard anything that was clearly his speaking that told us something new or different. Outside of the questionable (like a bunch of Lee's teachings) it is all there in the scripture we have. We just need enlightenment. And sometimes enlightenment comes through the enlightenment that others have received.

And surely God's breath is in that through the Holy Spirit. But that does not make it scripture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would say that is a fair and accurate statement based on the claims of scripture itself.

Jesus is the Word. But the scripture is never declared as having the entire Word. Only imparting the truth and wisdom that God actually revealed.

It is, by nature, "word of God." But it does not claim to be all of it. It only claims to be breathed out by God. To be profitable for teaching with a goal to righteousness. To be worthy of our focus and even meditation.

Once again you make statements that boggle my mind. The word never claims to "be all of it" yet the book of Revelations does make it clear that you are not to add to it, which to my understanding is saying that it is complete. Paul said that his burden was to "complete the word of God". Earlier you said "you found no support" for the assertion that the word of God being inerrant is true down to the very word, which seems very similar to the sentiment Jesus said concerning "every jot and tittle". So whether or not you wish to interpret this differently it seems patently obvious that there is support in the Bible for this assertion.

But aside from John's word in Revelation and Paul's word about his completing ministry, how about

1Tim
3:16 Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

Surely the scripture is declared here to be a complete word. Now you may argue that this is in the context of making man complete. So if you want to limit the scope of "all wisdom" to God's plan with man that would be one way to interpret this. But how do you say "the scripture is never declared to be complete" when that is exactly what is declared.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Once again you make statements that boggle my mind. The word never claims to "be all of it" yet the book of Revelations does make it clear that you are not to add to it, which to my understanding is saying that it is complete.

The statement in Revelation is only "clearly" with respect to what is written in those few chapters that we call the Book of Revelation. Extension beyond those pages to any or all of the rest of what we call the Bible is purely speculative.

Any such claim would continually put the relatively long process of deciding the canon of scripture in doubt because when those words were written, it is quite possible that significant portions had not yet been committed to writing, and even not yet agreed to as being scripture in oral form.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Earlier you said "you found no support" for the assertion that the word of God being inerrant is true down to the very word, which seems very similar to the sentiment Jesus said concerning "every jot and tittle". So whether or not you wish to interpret this differently it seems patently obvious that there is support in the Bible for this assertion.

Cute. A reference to the law. Not even to the prophets or the Psalms.

Yes the previous verse does mention the Prophets along with the Law. But in verse 18, the Prophets are curiously absent. It may mean nothing. But since the point of the passage as a whole (i.e., the context) is on the Law, that is all that is specifically addressed.

But even at that, the reference to jot and tittle is not to demand that each "stroke of the pen" is searchable for peculiar meaning. It is clear here, and in other passages, that the religious rulers (whether Pharisees or Sadducees) were fond of making exceptions to rules when it suited them. In another place we hear of a way to avoid caring for you parents (not honoring them).

The process of transcribing the scrolls of the OT was a painstaking process of not only being sure that the words were all there in the proper order, but that they even looked right. The implication of mentioning the "jots" and "tittles" was not to give the form of the words special meaning, but to indicate that removing them was not an option.

But to insist that it means that the jots and tittles themselves have instructive meaning is to go beyond the context. It is more like the reference to loving or hating God or money. Jesus said you loved one and hated the other. Yet we clearly understand this as a device of emphasis to describe a hierarchy of preference, or "love," not a dichotomy of love and hate. If Jesus literally meant love and hate as we know it, then there is no hope for any man who would be other than a wandering destitute, accepting only what is offered without asking.

Yet, it would appear that for some, the Bible must be parsed in such a painstaking way, and that only interpretations arrived at in this manner are consistent with the "inerrant Word of God."

This is why "inerrancy" is such a dubious topic. For the most part, only those seeking to force more out of scripture than it would otherwise seem to provide insist on the kind of view of inerrancy that needs the support of verses stretched beyond credulity.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1Tim
3:16 Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
3:17 That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

Surely the scripture is declared here to be a complete word. Now you may argue that this is in the context of making man complete.

The only thing declared "complete" here is "man" growing to the level that he is considered "complete." "Complete" is not in reference to "word" or "scripture" but to "man."

But if you really have to push this one to also be talking about the level of completeness of scripture relative to the wisdom of God, then . . . well, you become exactly what I was talking about above. You are more interested in forcing specific scripture to say what it does not. You make your constant use of scripture into a form of littering. Into proof texts for things that the scripture does not say.

I'm sure that someone (besides ZNP) will become incensed at the idea that quoting scripture could ever be littering. But just like searching the scriptures to find something but not going where they point, just saying a sequence of words that happens to be one of the sequences found in the Bible does not confer truth to what it is attached to.

This is the error of the vocal segment of the inerrant crowd. They, like you, declare something to be true, then trot out verses that do not support it while insisting that they do, and that the lack of scripture quoted by those who see the error makes their claim or error to itself be error.

Those are the claims of people whose god is the Bible. Who have made an idol out of the words in a book.

I do not need a verse to assert that 1 Timothy 3:16-17 does not declare or even imply that the scripture is complete with respect to all of the wisdom of God. It just does not speak to the subject. It could be true. But it does not say it. There or anywhere else.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Just for the record, yes.