ANY Difference Between The Bible being Inerrant Or Infallable?

Inspired doesn't equal inerrant by itself.

However, inspired BY GOD does. The bible is the word of God and it is inerrant.

 

Inerrant means 'without error,' yet you just affirmed there are some insignificant errors, so maybe there is another man-made word you'd like to use?

 

1. lnfallible signifies that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

2. Inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all mistakes.

I can affirm the former though I typically avoid using terms the scriptures don't choose, but I cannot affirm the latter because it's simply not true of the manuscripts we currently have; likewise, it appears you couldn't either since you have affirmed some small insignificant errors as well.

 

Actually Inerrant means doesn't have any errors. Infallible means incapable of any error.

If something is inspired by God it is inerrant and infallible God's word is important to him.

There is not one single error or blemish in God's word. The originals are perfect and any errors that people introduced into the copies have been eliminated.

The bible is God's inerrant, infallible word.

Here is a good explaination by RC Sproul from his radio show Renewing your Mind.

It is called, Inspiration, Inerrancy & Infallibility.

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/inspiration-infallibility-inerrancy/

 

Actually those emboldened definitions were taken from the Chicago statement you sent me:

1. lnfallible signifies that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

2. Inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all mistakes

I condensed them for brevity and clarity, but the statement itself says, "lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake..."

 

I deny that any errors and discrepancies, such as the ones you even acknowledged, in any way corrupt the truth claims of the Bible, so I doubt you and I are really that much in disagreement on this matter. Like I said, I just avoid using controversial terms that the scriptures themselves don't employee, if possible.

 

The bible is free from all mistakes. As we discussed they have been eliminated. We don't hand copy documents anymore. The bible is inerrant, trustworthy and true.

The definitions of infallible and inerrant given above are fine, but the actual themes in an objective definition mean the following.

Inerrant - Having no errors.
Infallible - Incapable of errors.

Infallible is actually a STRONGER statement than inerrant!

 

So my statement is stronger than yours, good. :laugh:

Listen, let's just call scripture what scripture calls scripture and leave it at that.

 

I said it is inspired inerrant and infallible.

 

I agree with this scholar on the subject:

Yes. Though historical and archaeological studies have made great strides in clearing up Bible difficulties problems still remain. This fact should not be surprising when we appreciate our lack of knowledge of the details of the ancient world.

The remaining difficulties can be categorized as follows:

Copyists Error

There are a few passages in Scripture where there was an early copyist error that keeps us from understanding precisely what was said. An example of such an error is found in 1 Samuel 13:1.

Age Of Saul

The writer is giving the ages of the different kings when they took office and then lists the length of their reign. The present Hebrew text says Saul was one year old when he began to reign over Israel. Obviously this cannot be true! The exact age of Saul is unknown to us because of this copyist error. Yet this error does not materially affect the meaning of Scripture. The fact that we do not know the exact age of Saul when he began to reign is really of no ultimate concern. This is true of other copyist errors we discover in Scripture.

Archaeological Questions

There are still certain issues between archaeology and biblical history that still remain unresolved. For example, there is the problem of the identification of the city of Ai that is mentioned in the book of Joshua. There is no clear confirmational archaeological evidence that Ai existed at the time when Scripture says Joshua and his men conquered the men of that city. It is one of the matters that is still unresolved, though there have been some plausible solutions offered.

Our Attitude

What should our attitude be toward these and other unanswered difficulties in which the Bible contains? The answers to all of our questions await a time in the future. The apostle Paul said:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Christians have this attitude because we believe Scripture will ultimately prove to be true.

The Ultimate Solution

We will not have all of our questions answered in this life. C.S. Lewis perceptively wrote about our unanswered questions:

While we await that time we have a revelation that is sufficient to meet our needs. There are problems that still remain to be solved. Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliation's between our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will all be knocked from under our feet. We shall see that there never was a problem (C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed).

Summary

Though there are some matters that are still unresolved with respect to Scripture, this should not concern the Christian. Time and time again the Bible has proven itself to be reliable in all matters that it covers. Furthermore, the testimony of Jesus, God the Son, confirms the entire Scripture as the inerrant Word of God. Ultimately these difficulties will be resolved.

 

I agree with RC Sproul and those who penned the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as stated before.