Biblical Inerrancy or Biblical Infallability

Here is my simpleton response (as some would characterize): If I cannot trust the Bible in the 'small' things (history, science=knowledge), then how can I trust it with the 'big' things (faith, etc.)?

The Bible, God's Word, is inerrant.

 

I've never tried to discriminate between the 2. Maybe the new definition of infallibility means limited inerrancy, but that wasn't the way it was defined in college or seminary.

I do believe in both inerrancy and infallibility, but not limited inerrancy which really isn't inerrancy at all.

 

My view of inerrancy is that the Scripture is completely true when seen in the linguistic-historical-sociological-theological context of the author.

If a record says 24,000, it doesn't have to mean 24,000 but can be an approximation.

Similarly, if a description of a scientific fact doesn't perfectly match up with the highly refined scientific methodology of the 21st century, that doesn't mean that the text is in error. It just means it wasn't given by inspiration to a 21st century American.

 

Yea. Good job.

 

I will stay away from opinion and stick to scripture on this one. "All scripture" is inspired even the parts that cover history and science.

 

Scripture is inerrant and Inspired by God in any angle, subject, or method one wants to read it. A contridiction that I may come across shows my lack of understanding and wrong interpretation.

 

The Bible is not the type of history that we have come to know. The Bible is redemptive history.

The Bible is not a science book; science books change all the time based on the lastest discoveries.

 

That is an interesting question. We are living in an age when everything is open for a reinterpretation which fits into one's world view. It is a matter of writing one's own dictionary when you don't like the definition! :BangHead:

It is important that we define terms clearly. The Bible speaks of itself as authoritative and perfect. Why would we interpret it otherwise? The Bible is inerrant in all matters to which is speaks - which is matters of faith and practice and on occasion science, history, etc.

 

The key phrase is:" that in its original form"

Clearly there are transcription errors contained in our Bibles.

 

Exactly. I'm increasingly convinced that these are the major issues which need to be addressed in our teaching, witness, and preaching to reach this increasingly secular generation. We have to be faithful to not only living out our faith (vitally important) but also to providing "every man an answer for the hope that is in us!" :jesus:

 

Good Day,

Both...

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy


Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing Authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called 'infallible' and 'inerrant'. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

'Infallible' 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 and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So 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. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

In Him,

Bill

 

Not to my knowledge.

 

Excellent. :thumbs: Let the Bible say what it intends to say. Let us not force it in either direction to say what it does not say or claim it does not say what it says.