Is The Bible Inerrant?

[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.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Wine only?

Are you sure?

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

I remember him telling about them arguing over this matter. And it was settled by the fact that Jesus drank wine at the last supper. It's just a small glass of it, after all. But yes, all the SBCs I grew up in didn't allow for drinking of wine.

In Michigan my mother smelled wine on a deacon's breath, and made a fuss about it. And even went and grabbed his garbage, to find his wine bottles, and brought them to the church to prove he was a wine drinker. A big no-no ... at least to her and others in her SB church. But he wasn't dismissed, nor did he step down. Which made my mom very angry. My mom was a legalist. Now you have a little window into what y'all think is wrong with me.

[james73]

Commercial break

The real question is, not whether "The Bible" is inerrant but will "AD: Beyond the Bible" be inerrant?

http://www.tvwise.co.uk/2013/07/nbc-...ond-the-bible/

Love the quote from NBC Chairman ".. the story was far from over after Christ's Crucifixion." Yup I think we would probably all agree with that here!

[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.