ANY Difference Between The Bible being Inerrant Or Infallable?

No, I'm refining what you said because you seem to put scripture on a higher plane than the God to whom they testify. God chose imperfect messengers, and yet they were able to accomplish their intended purpose, why should we believe any differently for the scriptures they were chosen to produce?

Forgive me, but when I hear this type of verbiage I picture a kindergardener with his fingers in his ears screaming "i can't hear you, i can't hear you" endlessly. If you don't want to debate differing views don't come to a "Baptist Debate Forum," instead go write a closed blog or better yet, in your diary. There no one can disturb you with their "heresies."

 

I believe the Bible is infallible. I believe all the events recorded happened. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I do not believe it's completely literal (Genesis 1, the parables, faith that can move mountains physically, etc). The Bible uses a lot of poetry, metaphor, and literary devices of the original languages to get its message through. Revelation clearly contains some symbolism--I don't think anyone believes a gigantic, sultry woman is going to fall out of the sky and make love to a dragon with seven heads and seven horns.

There are also minor errors. Some numberings aren't always consistent. Pi is an even 3. Stuff that makes sense in the culture of the time, but the Bible is not a science and mathematics textbook.

I would extend my faith in the Bible's infallibility to say that people who translated from the original texts to produce a copy of the Bible in their language (English, whatever) were also directed by God to produce a translation so close to the original text that it is also infallible. I don't extend that faith to paraphrases. I believe God continues his work on His Word as time goes on, to allow Christians of the time to receive His message. The canon might have closed in the early first century, but God did not stop working on his Word then.

 

GASP!!!

HERETIC!!! <finger's in ears> nananananana, i can't hearrrrr youuuuu!

 

Because as I said they are either to be believed and trusted or we have no basis to believe anything concerning God and Christ. I do not put the Scriptures on a higher plane than God. I do believe that the Scriptures are the very word of God to us and can be trusted not because they are the writings of men but the word of God. Your assertions would mean that we have an imperfect Gospel to preach to eternity bound sinners for we get it from the Scriptures. I ask you which parts of the Scriptures are imperfect and who decides which are which?

You may notice that I have been debating on this board. But some things are not up for debate. You seem to hate the simplicity of what I say though you can't seem to do anything but stir the pot and muddy things up. It ain't complicated it is just true.

Now I am done.

 

And a few discrepancies in some facts, transcription, and translation errors in a book written by dozens of authors over decades of time lessons that trust and belief in their reliable testimony? I'm sorry, but my faith in not in the book, its in the person that the book introduces us to.

On this note. We do see where Jesus is referred to as the "Word." Where does the bible refer to itself as the "word of God," and how do you believe that relates to the Word, as a person?

I doubt it. :love2:

 

God has the power to preserve his word inerrant and has done so. It is ridiculous to think that the errors of men could possibly corrupt the word of the almighty God.

Isaiah 55:10-11 NIV
10As the rain and the snow

come down from heaven,

and do not return to it

without watering the earth

and making it bud and flourish,

so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

11so is my word that goes out from my mouth:

It will not return to me empty,

but will accomplish what I desire

and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

 

Who said they are "corrupted?" Who said God doesn't have the power to preserve anything he wants to preserve? And who equates the recorded, transcribed and translated testimony of God's words with the actual words of the almighty God? If God parted the sky right now and spoke in an audible voice to you; telling you to go sacrifice your oldest son. Would you look at him and say, "NO" your WORD tells me not to kill? The scriptures are the testament (old and new), meaning TESTIMONY of God's revelation and words. Don't confuse the two because I assure you that ONE is greater than the other.

I'm not discussing the words "that goes out from [His] mouth," I'm discussing the scriptures as the recorded testimony of inspired men, passed down through transcription and translation for over 2000 years. And even those accomplish their desired intent and achieve the purpose for which he sent, so really I don't see your point.

 

The scriptures are the words that went out from his mouth. They are the inerrant infallible word of God.

Jesus even said they cannot be broken.

I'm sorry but if you were my pastor and you said that the scriptures were not inerrant I would be out the door and looking for another church that day.

When the doctrine of inerrancy leaves a church apostasy moves in. Because denying inerrancy is nothing more than denying the word of God.

 

And if my pastor claimed something about scripture that scripture never claims for itself I'd be out the door. I guess that is why there is more than one denomination. Some based on what scriptures actually say, and others based on man made legalistic dogma.

You've never answered the question as to why God has chosen to use imperfect vessels to carry his message to the world, such a Paul and Peter, but their writings had to be without any error? How can an imperfect man still accomplish the purposes of God, but an imperfect book cannot?

 

It doesn't matter if God used a Donkey to write what he wrote it would still be perfect because God is not a God of error and his written word is serious. Because it is inspired by God it is inerrant, preserved inerrant, and free of any corruption at all. It is reliable and trustworthy.

Your profile says you are in the SBC. I thought a church had to hold to inerrancy to even qualify for the SBC.

 

If there is error in scripture and certainly there is today. I've found errors so have many others and is why we have the dreaded arguments over which translation to use. It's always my version is right and yours is wrong. While we argue them we are missing the only thing that certainly has no errors. This being the Holy Spirit. If we have the Spirit we have no excuse for accepting any error as truth discoverd or not. I myself do not worship a book but the God who gave me what He must have thought I needed. Even though you might have that same thing I have. Chances are your view of what it says is different than mine.
No two people are alike what could make them think alike? Christ and He will when He returns.

MB

 

We agree on this point, sorry we don't necessarily agree on the manmade and often contentious term of "inerrancy." I don't find in necessary to make claims about scripture that it doesn't even make for itself. If you need to do so to help your faith, fine.

You thought wrongly. As my first post discussed, it is all in how you define the terms.

 

Sounds nice, except that no two manuscripts agree. That's reality.

Yes it is... but that reliability and trustworthiness is not based on a theory of inerrancy, but on it's nature as God's message to us. The meaning, theology and power of each passage is not altered by corruptions to the text.

No. Inerrancy is not required. Furthermore, it is not even mentioned in the 2000 BF&M, indicating that the Conservative Resurgence probably had little to do with inerrancy. The divisive issue seemed to be that the Conservative Resurgence people did not want Jesus to be the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted. That is, what Jesus said and did (as God incarnate) does not personify the teachings of the Old and New Testament*.

*I realize that the claim was that some theologians were claiming support for homosexuality, etc. based on their belief that Jesus did not address the issue, but that totally misrepresents what the "criterion" statement was all about in the 1963 BF&M. Instead of clarifying the criterion statement, the Conservative Resurgence folks tossed the baby out with the bathwater and made the Bible the authority over Christ... the book as the revelation of God, not Jesus Christ. Instead of having a relationship with Christ that is accentuated and nurtured through an inspired book, we are now presented with the concept of having a relationship with an inspired book that tells us about Christ. (If you go back and listen to the floor debate at the SBC when this was discussed, this is made clear.)

 

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is quite clear on the inspiration of the scriptures as well as teaching their utter sufficiency in equiping the man of God for every good work. Also 2 Peter chapter 1 deals with the writing of the bible and explains how it is not the words of men but is the words of the Holy Spirit.

Here is how inerrancy has been defined by evangelical christians :

http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

I support this document whole heartedly.

First of all the manuscrips do agree in the vast majority of circumstances. Check out the following document:

http://carm.org/illustration-bible-text-manuscript-tree-and-variant-readings

Also check out this page with many links regarding the composition of the bible: http://carm.org/bible

Regarding the SBC and inerrancy, I will find out for sure by asking my pastor and checking on that. If the SBC is a denomination that doesn't support inerrancy I don't want to support it and will indeed leave.

We listen to God throgh the bible. That is how he has chosen to speak to us. The bible is God's written revelation of himself to his people.

 

No one here is disputing scriptures sufficiency in equipping the man of God for every good work, we are disputing the manmade concept of inerrancy, remember?

Again, we have affirmed the scriptures are written by inspiration. That is a different claim than the one of "inerrancy."

It only takes one discrepancy to negate the concept of "inerrancy."

Some in the SBC do support your brand of inerrancy, no doubt, but the SBC is not the Vatican that passes down edicts to the masses to follow without question.

Agreed. He also has chosen to speak through prophets, priests, kings and apostles, all of which were imperfect vessels used to accomplish a divine purpose. The scriptures do the same...testify to Him.

 

Well said.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Someone warn me if you see blue lights flashing.

 

I find it absurd that a "christian" would think the bible isn't inerrant. It reeks of apostasy. Makes me sick. I'm sad that there are baptists who don't believe the bible is true.

 

You are begging the question by presuming "truth" is equal to "inerrant." I find it absurd that a "christian" would make claims about the scriptures that scriptures never make about itself. But, if man-made terms help your faith, that is fine. When you read the bible, be sure to put on your "inerrant glasses" so you don't accidentally see any transcription errors or discrepancies, we wouldn't want your relationship with God to be shattered under such a disappointing and surprising discovery.

 

When something says it is inspired by God it is indeed saying it is inerrant. And if you have a shread of belief that the scriptures accuratley recorded Jesus' view he was shown to use a literal hermeneutic and hold the highest view of scripture possible. He said they cannot be broken and exegeted them vigorously. Biblical inerrancy is the view of Jesus Christ.

As shown in the links provided earlier, there are no transcription "errors" that effect anything at all. They have all been eliminated by textual criticism and have been shown to be nothing more than spelling and punctuation for the most part.

The word of God is ineed intact inerrant. It communicates to us the purpose God intended for it to communicate and every single sentence can be trusted to be the true word of God.

 

Again you are begging the question by presuming that inspired is equal to inerrant.

I have affirmed that I believe scripture is accurate and reliable. Again that is different from the term "inerrant." Why is that so difficult to understand? I believe a testimony, as one might hear in a court room, can be reliable and accurate, but not necessarily "totally free of error." The fact that you can't seem to draw that distinction is not a problem I can resolve.

So are you admitting that there are some errors, but just that they just haven't "effected anything," is that right?

Then that is error, even if only minor and insignificant. Good we are in agreement. :thumbs: