Featured Do you hold the Bible as Inerrant/inspired/infallible?

I once asked a Wycliffe Bible translator if he told the locals they were producing an inerrant text. He said they did. If this doesn't blow the concept of an inerrant "English" Bible . . . .

 

>Are you doubting that the Apostles actually even wrote and recorded the NT books than, as had to be copied later on off something, didn't it?

Mark, Luke, Paul, and the writer of Rev. were not Apostles.

 

We don't have the originals. We have a collection of manuscripts, copies of the originals. We have enough copies that we can confidently say we have a trustworthy Bible but without the originals how can we say what we have is inerrant? We don't have anything but copies to compare to.

 

Apparently you do not truly understand the inerrant position.

 

The point and the belief is irrelevant because there are no autographs available. It may be they didn't make any spelling errors like I constantly do. Or they may have. The fact is we can't know for sure. And we can believe whatever we want in regard to that because its all hypothesis since no autographs are available. However, that doesn't change the truth of what they were saying.

 

that has been my point from the begining. I don't believe that since the bible is not a physics text book it doesn't have to be perfect when speaking of how many legs and insect has. But it does have to be innerrant on teachings of doctrine and morality. On God's revelation to man. Which is why it is important to have innerrancy as a consept properly understood. Or you may get new Chrisitans who believe that the bible's attestation to an insect having 4 legs is grounds to believe that since its not accurate in one aspect it ipso facto must be wrong about God's revelation to man. Consider Ehrman. His textual Criticism lead him to agnosticism because of this very thing.

 

I understand when a Enlightenment era manmade thought is being elevated to "essential" doctrine status.

I understand that the Chicago Statement on inerrancy has over 20 qualifications for the word inerrant.

I understand that no serious scholar claims inerrant for anything but the originals (which we don't have).

I understand that inerrancy may sound good from the pulpit but is a destructive red herring used to divide the church.

 

The Bible is inerrant and infallible in its original autographs. (2Pet.1:21; 1Tim.3:16; Isa.8:20; etc.)
Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. These holy men of God (prophets and apostles) wrote down the inspired words of God, which are totally inerrant in the manuscripts in which they wrote. God doesn't make mistakes.

God promised to preserve his word. This is different than inerrancy. It is the doctrine of preservation. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from this word. A jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet and a tittle a part of a letter comparable to the crossing of a "t". IOW he promised to preserve his word. He didn't promise how but he promised he would. We have more than 5,000 MSS attesting to the veracity of the Word of God. It has been preserved.

God promised to give illumination to believers. In 1Cor.2:12,13 he has given his Holy Spirit that we might understand the things of the Spirit of God as compared to the unsaved man or the natural man (vs. 14) who is unable to understand spiritual things because he does not have the Spirit of God.

 

> Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would pass from this word.

St John states he edited his Gospel for length.

 

Do you mean in the texts we have now or only in the autographs. Because if you mean the texts we have now you still have the problem of the value of pi. 4 legged inscets, bat classification as a bird or 4 legged birds, or the sun revolving around the earth, or the earth not spinning on its axis, or historically that King David collects 10,000 drams which wasn't a denomination until King Darius I who btw lived 500 years after David, or that Ostriches by nature are innatentive to their offspring and "abandon" their eggs, or that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, etc...

But if you mean the autographs isn't that irrelevant since we don't have any of them to access?

 

Yes but its irrelevant as the autographs aren't in existance. Also depends on what you mean for example if I make an observation that the sun seems to rise in the east and set in the west that is true as far as the observation goes but it doesn't imply the sun moves around the earth. I must not be understood to say that the sun moves around the earth. If I am to be understood as having said that sun moves around the earth then your understanding of what I am saying is wrong.

I agree with this statement. But I'm not going to rely on the bible to help me classify bats or insects.

 

Who ever suggested to do such a thing. Irrelevant.

 

When one suggest that the scriptures are inerrant scientifically or that the bible is a scientific book that is what they imply.