Inerrancy

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My point is that the Bible has wonderful inspiration messages but we cannot treat it as an inerrant history book.
And if that is so, what exactly do you find to be it's "inspirational value"? If it's all made up stories, right? Do you find other "Holy Books" equally inspiring? The Book of the Hopi perhaps?

Much love!
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I know the answer cookie. Mark has him die the morning after the Passover meal. John has time the afternoon before the Passover meal. Rather than embrace truth and facts, you cling to having to believe inerrancy.
The biblical day starts at sundown.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:1-5
This causes some apparent contradictions, but most theologians point out that the 4 gospels are from different perspectives and complement each other, rather than act as parallel versions. If they were all the same, we'd only have 1 in scripture.
The concept of inerrancy is based upon two other important concepts, that scripture is inspired by God, and that God can't tell a lie or make a mistake.
There are many things in scripture that can't be reconciled physically and must be understood spiritually. However, in order to do so, you have to be spiritual.
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:10-14
Anyone can read scripture, but not everyone is capable of understanding it.
The bible contains history, but it isn't a history book. It contains poetry, but it's not a poetry book. Scripture from Genesis to the book of the Revelation is all God's testimony of the person of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (and God's testimony about us, evil and sinful men in need of a savior.)
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew and Luke differ on who Joseph’s father was. The inventive explanation is that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s side of the family. No where in Luke is that stated. My point is that the Bible has wonderful inspiration messages but we cannot treat it as an inerrant history book.
Just because something isn't explicitly stated, doesn't mean that it isn't true. There has to be two different genealogies because Joseph was not the physical progenitor of Jesus Christ, but Jesus was Joseph's legitimate heir. Redemptively we're concerned with the "seed of the woman" first mentioned in the protoevangelon from Genesis, but the inheritance of position and property was reckoned according to the firstborn son by law, as well as common cultural practices.
Luke was a gentile and traces the genealogy back to Adam. Matthew was Hebrew and his gospel is proving that Jesus is the legitimate "son of promise." That's why Christian translations call Isaac an only son, though Ishmael was Abraham's son as well. The Hebrew Tanaach "corrects" the passage by changing "only" to "favored", but admits in the footnotes that the translation isn't certain (as they do with all obviously messianic verses applied to our Lord.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Just because something isn't explicitly stated, doesn't mean that it isn't true.
Exactly. Now all the naysayers want explicit statements or they refuse to believe the truth. They also want all their homework to be done for them so that they do not have to make the effort to reconcile Scripture with Scripture.
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
...the Bible has wonderful inspiration messages but we cannot treat it as an inerrant history book
Why not stick with Grimm's Fairy Tales or Alice in Wonderland if you are that skeptical? At least you will have a lot of fun reading fantasies.

However, your arguments are tired and tiresome, since the so-called Higher Critics already beat you to the draw. And they have all fallen by the wayside.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Abaxvahl

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exactly. Now all the naysayers want explicit statements or they refuse to believe the truth. They also want all their homework to be done for them so that they do not have to make the effort to reconcile Scripture with Scripture.
The "naysayers" typically aren't spiritual people, but seek to know God by a carnal understanding. It can't be done if we accept that salvation is by faith and that "the just shall live by faith."
 

Robert Gwin

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2021
6,888
1,587
113
69
Central Il
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew and Luke differ on who Joseph’s father was. The inventive explanation is that Luke’s genealogy is Mary’s side of the family. No where in Luke is that stated. My point is that the Bible has wonderful inspiration messages but we cannot treat it as an inerrant history book.

There are only errors in versions Ponder, not in the Bible itself. Joseph’s being called the “son of Heli” is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli. While not listing her, Luke evidently traces the natural descent of Jesus’ mother Mary from David
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Exactly. Now all the naysayers want explicit statements or they refuse to believe the truth. They also want all their homework to be done for them so that they do not have to make the effort to reconcile Scripture with Scripture.
A lot of people don't want a reason to believe, and look for reasons to not.

Much love!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111

Cooper

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2020
2,776
866
113
Sheffield, Yorkshire, home of Robin Hood.
robinhood-loxley.weebly.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Just registered today. I’m glad this forum exists. I’m a Christian and have read the Bible with emphasis on the New Testament. I believe the Bible is wonderful, inspirational, devotional, but the one thing it cannot be is historically accurate.

The gospels differ, which isn’t the issue. In many instances they have conflicting detail which cannot be reconciled. Matthew and Luke differ on Joseph’s father, Mark and Acts differ on the circumstances of Judas’ death, Mark and John differ on what day of the week Jesus died. Matthew has wise men visiting baby Jesus, Luke has shepherds. Mark and Matthew differ on when the stone was rolled away from Jesus’ tomb. Mark and Luke differ on when the curtain was torn at the temple. I could go on and on and on. Any thoughts?
I used to think that as well, until someone pointed out that eye witnesses, who perhaps see a fight or car accident for example, will all tell it differently, each one in their own way, and no two accounts will be alike.

If the accounts are the same, then beware, they will have collaborated beforehand and likely will be making up an alibi, and up to no good.
.
 
Last edited:

Bob Estey

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2021
4,675
2,483
113
71
Sparks, Nevada
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just registered today. I’m glad this forum exists. I’m a Christian and have read the Bible with emphasis on the New Testament. I believe the Bible is wonderful, inspirational, devotional, but the one thing it cannot be is historically accurate.

The gospels differ, which isn’t the issue. In many instances they have conflicting detail which cannot be reconciled. Matthew and Luke differ on Joseph’s father, Mark and Acts differ on the circumstances of Judas’ death, Mark and John differ on what day of the week Jesus died. Matthew has wise men visiting baby Jesus, Luke has shepherds. Mark and Matthew differ on when the stone was rolled away from Jesus’ tomb. Mark and Luke differ on when the curtain was torn at the temple. I could go on and on and on. Any thoughts?
I don't have time to check the accuracy of your assertion that there are historical inaccuracies in the Bible. I do believe that God and Jesus are quoted accurately throughout the Bible, and that is where my emphasis is: The teachings of God and Jesus.
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just registered today. I’m glad this forum exists. I’m a Christian and have read the Bible with emphasis on the New Testament. I believe the Bible is wonderful, inspirational, devotional, but the one thing it cannot be is historically accurate.

The gospels differ, which isn’t the issue. In many instances they have conflicting detail which cannot be reconciled. Matthew and Luke differ on Joseph’s father, Mark and Acts differ on the circumstances of Judas’ death, Mark and John differ on what day of the week Jesus died. Matthew has wise men visiting baby Jesus, Luke has shepherds. Mark and Matthew differ on when the stone was rolled away from Jesus’ tomb. Mark and Luke differ on when the curtain was torn at the temple. I could go on and on and on. Any thoughts?

please provide scripture verses for these
There are many supposed contradictions but are not in reality
Such as the Virgin birth Isa 7:14 and Jn 1:45 Joseph is the father of Jesus
But there are more than one kind of father
Joseph is his legal father