Inerancy - Define, or dismiss?

[St. SteVen]

I do not worship teh book either. but I worship the author of the book.

Glad to see you learned something from me. - LOL

Actually those terms you use for OT are names used to describe scholars who criticize the texts. the ones at the time of Jesus were real however. Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots

Yes the original autographs and all faithful copies are in errant. Translations will create errors because of problems going from one language to another. Most errors are simple linguistic weaknesses instead of doctrinal errors.

This seems contradictory.
Inerrant? How does that level with "the lying pen of the scribes"?

JER 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Glad to see you learned something from me. - LOL


This seems contradictory.
Inerrant? How does that level with "the lying pen of the scribes"?

JER 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

/

Well the context of Jeremiah is not talking about everything written but a very specific incident or time in Israels' history.

But even Jesus validated the Scriptures as being the Word of God! He would know better than us.

 

[St. SteVen]

Well the context of Jeremiah is not talking about everything written but a very specific incident or time in Israels' history.

Earlier you cited the "Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots"
Was that limited to "a very specific incident or time in Israels' history"?

But even Jesus validated the Scriptures as being the Word of God! He would know better than us.

In reference to what scriptures?
The NT canon didn't appear until the 4th century.
And then there is the matter of translation of the Bible which didn't happen until much later.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type

/ @Hillsage

 

[Hillsage]

Earlier you cited the "Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots"
Was that limited to "a very specific incident or time in Israels' history"?


In reference to what scriptures?
The NT canon didn't appear until the 4th century.
And then there is the matter of translation of the Bible which didn't happen until much later.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

/ @Hillsage

I think the whole pied piper thing of calling 'the bible'...'the word of GOD', really got started in the hippie Jesus Revolution era. I don't remember Billy Graham EVER holding up 'the book' and declaring "The WORD OF GOD says". He always called it just what it was 'THE BIBLE SAYS!" And nothing it 'said' was spoken, it was all 'written' with black ink on white paper. And all you ever heard was 'THE WORD OF MAN' speaking. And God didn't run the printing presses either.

Your URL above has much to say....if one really wants to dig for convincing studies and quotes from very early church fathers.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think the whole pied piper thing of calling 'the bible'...'the word of GOD', really got started in the hippie Jesus Revolution era. I don't remember Billy Graham EVER holding up 'the book' and declaring "The WORD OF GOD says". He always called it just what it was 'THE BIBLE SAYS!" And nothing it 'said' was spoken, it was all 'written' with black ink on white paper. And all you ever heard was 'THE WORD OF MAN' speaking. And God didn't run the printing presses either.

That's an interesting point.
This was all I found in a Bible search of the NT.

• Matthew 4:4 NIV
  Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
  
  
• Matthew 15:6 NIV
  they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

/

 

[amadeus]

That's an interesting point.
This was all I found in a Bible search of the NT.

• Matthew 4:4 NIV
  Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
  
  
• Matthew 15:6 NIV
  they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 19:13

This is Jesus, the Word of God. Is he also a book? Indeed, where does it say so in the Bible?

Was it not written under inspiration:

2ti 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Does this make it the Word of God? For me it is when a man uses it as led by the Holy Spirit to do so. Improperly used, it is NOT. Consider when satan quoted the scripture against Jesus:

Mt 4:6

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. [from Psalm 91:11-12]

And Jesus then quoted the Scripture:

Mt 4:7

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. [from Deut 6:16]

What satan quoted from scripture was NOT the Word of God, but what Jesus quoted, certainly was.

 

[St. SteVen]

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Rev 19:13

This is Jesus, the Word of God. Is he also a book? Indeed, where does it say so in the Bible?

Was it not written under inspiration:

2ti 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Does this make it the Word of God? For me it is when a man uses it as led by the Holy Spirit to do so. Improperly used, it is NOT. Consider when satan quoted the scripture against Jesus:

Mt 4:6

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. [from Psalm 91:11-12]

And Jesus then quoted the Scripture:

Mt 4:7

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. [from Deut 6:16]

What satan quoted from scripture was NOT the Word of God, but what Jesus quoted, certainly was.

That's a good reference in Revelation. Jesus is the Word. And a prophetic utterance is the Word.

Seems what Satan quoted was scripture, but was twisted? (to mean something it didn't) BAD interpretation.

/

 

[amadeus]

That's a good reference in Revelation. Jesus is the Word. And a prophetic utterance is the Word.

But... some people won't buy it when you say that what is written may not always be the Word of God. When Jesus spoke, of course, it always was/is, but Jesus was always working according to His Father's will. I don't of any people who definitely always are. I don't say that they do not exist, but if they do and I am not, how can I always know?

Seems what Satan quoted was scripture, but was twisted? (to mean something it didn't) BAD interpretation.

Even so... and men can at times do the same thing. Look at some of the disputes/ arguments/ discussions on this forum.

 

[St. SteVen]

But... some people won't buy it when you say that what is written may not always be the Word of God.

Oh yes, I'm painfully aware of that. - LOL

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Earlier you cited the "Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots"
Was that limited to "a very specific incident or time in Israels' history"?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Glad to see you learned something from me. - LOL

Well as I have been doing that for 50 years, I think it far preceded
your writing to me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In reference to what scriptures?
The NT canon didn't appear until the 4th century.
And then there is the matter of translation of the Bible which didn't happen until much later.

To all Scriptures. We are talking the bible and not just simple writings, which Jesus did not validate.

Yes translations can be destructive like the New World Translation etc., but those that translate into another language as faithful as possible do no harm to the readers.

As time has gone on, it is more incumbent on the disciple to study harder to learn more. We are far removed from teh original languages and the culture and customs and ways they used and understood words.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
In reference to what scriptures?

To all Scriptures.

LOL
Like the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita?

We are talking the bible and not just simple writings, which Jesus did not validate.

Which ones did Jesus validate?
The New Testament wasn't written until decades after Jesus Ascension.

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

LOL
Like the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita?

No, they were not God breathed or claim to be as SCripture is.

Which ones did Jesus validate?
The New Testament wasn't written until decades after Jesus Ascension.

And why should how long after Jesus ascended matter for writing His Words down? How do you know Jesus ascended apart from the Scriptures or the testimony of those who quote the Scriptures?

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
LOL
Like the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita?

No, they were not God breathed or claim to be as SCripture is.

Really? Ask a Muslim or a Hindu.
Actually, don't do that. You might be injured.
You would be considerably shorter without your head. - LOL


St. SteVen said:
Which ones did Jesus validate?
The New Testament wasn't written until decades after Jesus Ascension.

And why should how long after Jesus ascended matter for writing His Words down? How do you know Jesus ascended apart from the Scriptures or the testimony of those who quote the Scriptures?

Seems you neither understood my question nor answered it.
How could Jesus valid that which was not yet written?
What are you claiming that he validated? (my actual question)

Why does time matter for eyewitness reporting?
Imagine if we read nothing of the 9/11 attacks until 30 years after the fact?
We would be waiting another six years to read anything about them.
Do you suppose the story may have been altered in all that time?

And with only minor differences between the synoptic Gospels,
They obviously all came from the same source (copied) with only minor revisions.

/

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Seems you neither understood my question nor answered it.
How could Jesus valid that which was not yet written?
What are you claiming that he validated? (my actual question)

He validated the OLD. And as He was God in human flesh when He walked on earth, it does not seem a stretch that He also was prophesying what would become th enew!

Really? Ask a Muslim or a Hindu.
Actually, don't do that. You might be injured.
You would be considerably shorter without your head. - LOL

Well they do not! They76 know the Quran was written by Mohammed when He was in a delirium from fever.

And the Baghvad Gita is a compendium of writings. Hindus have millions of gods. And cows are among them so if cows write.....

What are you claiming that he validated? (my actual question)

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Both Jesus and Satan knew what was being spoken of- it was called the old testament or the Jewish Scriptures.

not the deuterocanonical books nor the pseudopigrapha books.

 

[St. SteVen]

Questions; - from the OP:
- Is inerrancy really more about the interpretation of a text than the text itself?
- Is the claim of inerrancy centered on a particular doctrinal view of the Bible?
- Is inerrancy of more importance in evangelicalism than across the spectrum of Christianity?
- Is a belief in biblical inerrancy the litmus test for the believer in Jesus Christ?
- Does making inerrancy the center of Christian faith lead to an imbalance?
- What makes the Bible a true book?
- Should our trust in the book overshadow our trust in the author?

/

 

[St. SteVen]

From the OP.

inerrancy /ĭn-ĕr′ən-sē/

noun​

1. Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility.
   "belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures."
2. The quality of being inerrant; freedom from error.
3. Exemption from error.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

(more at post #1)
Includes video, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and discussion questions. Thanks.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

inerrancy /ĭn-ĕr′ən-sē/

noun​

1. Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility.
   "belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures."
2. The quality of being inerrant; freedom from error.
3. Exemption from error.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Biblical inerrancy​

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that
"Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". Some equate inerrancy
with biblical infallibility; others do not. The belief in Biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts
of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy". Wikipedia


The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
The Inerrancy Statement elaborates on various details in articles formed as couplets of "We affirm..." and "We deny...".
Under the statement, inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts which no longer exist, but which, its adherents claim,
"can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy" (Article 10). In the statement, inerrancy does not refer to
a blind literal interpretation, and that "history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as
hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth." It also makes it clear that the
signers deny "that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions
in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly
be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."

Signatories to the statement came from a variety of evangelical Christian denominations, and included Robert Preus,
James Montgomery Boice, Kenneth Kantzer, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul and John F. MacArthur.

Questions;
- Is inerrancy really more about the interpretation of a text than the text itself?
- Is the claim of inerrancy centered on a particular doctrinal view of the Bible?
- Is inerrancy of more importance in evangelicalism than across the spectrum of Christianity?
- Is a belief in biblical inerrancy the litmus test for the believer in Jesus Christ?
- Does making inerrancy the center of Christian faith lead to an imbalance?
- What makes the Bible a true book?
- Should our trust in the book overshadow our trust in the author?

See post #2 for article on:

Evangelical strife over inerrancy #2 ​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Questions;
- Is inerrancy really more about the interpretation of a text than the text itself?
- Is the claim of inerrancy centered on a particular doctrinal view of the Bible?
- Is inerrancy of more importance in evangelicalism than across the spectrum of Christianity?
- Is a belief in biblical inerrancy the litmus test for the believer in Jesus Christ?
- Does making inerrancy the center of Christian faith lead to an imbalance?
- What makes the Bible a true book?
- Should our trust in the book overshadow our trust in the author?

See post #2 for article on:

Evangelical strife over inerrancy #2 ​

My personal opinion is that Biblical Inerrancy is a bit of a language problem. The real question is: How reliable or authoritative are the Scriptures? If we don't know if the records are relatively accurate then we can't place much trust in it.

But in stating that imperfect men, who wrote the Scriptures, can write mistake-free with no evidence of flaws, goes quite farther than the question of reliability and authority. I should think that God called men who were capable of transmitting, reliably, information that people need to know is a reasonable approach. After all, Jesus spent 3.5 years minimum with his disciples perhaps to ensure that they get their story right, upon which the Gospel message relies for its history of Jesus' acts and statements.

But stating that the letters written by the apostles or by their students is reasonably reliable does not require human perfection or flawless behavior. It's just a matter of truth or lie, of exaggeration or not, of evidence of divine origin or not with respect to modern scientific understanding. I don't think science enters into it when biblical authors merely speak in terms of their *experience,* as opposed to expressing scientific philosophy.

Those who insist on Biblical Inerrancy are, I think, fearful of a slippery slope with respect to biblical reliability. They want to establish the importance of both divine inspiration and essential truth-telling. But in my view, the important thing is to capture not just basic truth telling, but also the believer's experience of God and His righteousness so that how we live is made clear.

We should maintain a critical eye towards Scriptures not just because copyists made errors over time but also because the authors were themselves flawed. And the Scriptures themselves indicate that they were flawed.

But this does not indicate that they were in any way untruthful with respect to what they said and wrote. A person who sinned can confess their sin and be speaking the truth in their confesssion without transmitting in their confession lies and sins that produce those lies. I believe the effort in Scriptures is to speak truth, and not indicate the perfection of the authors or how they transmitted this truth.

Note that the Scriptures did not transmit truth in a geometric-like fashion such that their truth is crystal clear and beyond question. Rather, the Scriptures broadcast a number of witnesses over time such that all of the information can be weighed together to draw general conclusions and common experiences.

The way we deduce truth from the Scriptures is the way we would normally do this in life. And it is the typical way we would determine what Scriptures are inispired. We determine, by reading the material, if the character of the authors is typical and in common with those who know God and conform to it. When they write in this way, showing their calling and the product of this calling, what they say can reliably viewed as "truth."