Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Paul33, Apr 8, 2005.
Which view of inerrancy do you believe?
Definitions taken from:
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983), 222-223.
I couldn't do the poll because I thought the questions were more about interpreting certain passages than what is meant by the doctrine of inerrancy.
Biblical inerrancy, as I understand it, and as my church, mission board and seminary define it, is that the 66 books are inerrant in the original autographs.
This is from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and seems to touch on some of what you were asking, I think.
There's a long page on this with more specific statements but it doesn't take that long to read.
That URL posted above doesn't work. Try this:
The underlying assumption that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts should have been stated.
With that understanding, which view of inerrancy is correct?
I can't pick one because of the way they are worded.
I am closer to either the 1st or 2nd choices, but the 2nd choice makes it sound like one would interpret all those statements a certain way, when I actually thing some of them are factually accurate and that would fall under the 1st choice.
I think each passage like that has to be looked at in context.
In my personal opinion, the choices are very poorly worded, making it very difficult to make a choice.
I believe that all Christians have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to fairly, honestly, objectively, and prayerfully study the Bible for themselves without prejudgments regarding the accuracy of it. If there are errors in the Bible, we need to admit that they are there and consider why they are there and what the implications are. And, of course, if there are errors in the Bible, and we fail to see that because we failed to give the Bible an honest look, we shall never consider why those errors are there or what the implications are, and we will thus miss some VERY important truth that is in the Bible.
The mindset that questioning the Bible makes one less conservative than one who does not is absurd. The Bible is much too important for us not to question it. And, in my opinion, those who fail to question it demonstrate a lack of faith and confidence in God, thinking that if God did not give us a perfect Bible that means that God is not perfect and therefore is not trustworthy.
Rom. 4:3. For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
Abraham’s faith was not in the Old or New Testament Canon and its inerrancy—Abraham’s faith was in God. And so it should be with us.
Lets get this right here. Are you saying that there could be errors in the original Old and New Testaments? If you answer in the positive, then you would not be considered a true Christian, and in fact must be known as a heretic. I cannot for one minute accept, that ANY person who has been born-again by the Holy Spirit, Who is the Author of the entire Holy Bible in the original, Who is also known in Scripture, as the Spirit of Truth, and we are told that He will lead us into the Truth, would have allowed even one "dot" in the original to be in the wrong place. We are here talking about the Infallable, Inerrant Word of Almighty God, and not some mere publication of man.
How can the Bible, if its has errors in it (the original) ever be used "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction"? How can aomething that it faulty, be used as a Standard to "Correct"?
No, the original penned Words of both Testaments, are 100% the Infallable, Inerrant Word of Almighty God, completely trustworth in all that it says, completely correct in all that it says. Without ANY ERROR. 0%. If there was also 00000000000000000.1% chance of error in the original, then I would be the first person to quit being a Christian. But, as I have full assurance from the Holy Spirit, that the Holy Bible is 100% His Word, I thank Him.
I'll second that!
When scientific and historical information is presented in the Bible it is without error.
Absolute inerrancy says that it is detailed and technical. Therefore "the sun stopped" means the sun stopped.
Full inerrancy says that what it asserts is true. Therefore, from the perspective of earth, describing the sun as stopping is true. Not all scientific references are phenomenal. The underlying belief is that the scientific and historical references are true in what they affirm. Virgin birth, resurrection of Christ - these are historical and scientific statements to be believed. The earth hangs on nothing - ditto. Accusations are made against the Bible containing errors because of a failure to understand phenomenal language, or forcing exact technical numbers on the Bible when it is using aproximations, just like we do today.
Your post above this was really good.
This only indicated that the Sun viewed from the Earth stopped. This could indicate many things. It indicated that the sun literally stopped, but what that literally described is NOT the same as the Earth being the center of the solar system. IMHO
Why don't you go ahead and tell us what the implications are if God allowed errors to be written by the original hands of those he inspired? Show us what a big scholar you are!
This only indicated that the Sun viewed from the Earth stopped.
Then you're a "full inerrantist." You accept that the statement is true from a particular, earthly, frame of reference.
An "absolute inerrantist" would say that in fact the sun stopped in its motion around the earth. And there are, in fact, Christian "geocentrists" who maintain that the Earth is, in fact, stationary while the heavenly bodies orbit around it. Take 'em for what they're worth.
Thanks for the explanation. I am probably closer to full inerrancy but I don't like what seems to me to be an artificial category, and I am not putting that in concrete. I can just see how some people would start assailing those who say they are absolute inerrantists or full inerrantists. It gets so tiring.
One thing that I very much like about the liberal scholars that I know is that Christ shines through their lives and it is obviously to everyone around them that that they love God, the Bible, and their neighbors. Most obviously you are not a liberal!
Personally, I am a conservative, but the argument that you are making that I should be converted and become a liberal rather than a conservative like you is most convincing. After all, it certainly would be a shame to die and spend eternity in hell for being a con(servative).
It looks to me as though you have confused a boyhood Sunday school teacher with God. That Sunday school teacher was a fallible man, and you should have realized that. Even the most ultraconservative Bible scholars acknowledge a human, and therefore fallible, aspect in the Bible. And of course it was human beings who decided that 39 documents were the inspired word of God, and it was more human beings, centuries later, who added to that canon and called the new documents the New Testament. No one knew for sure whether or not God had any part in this at all. It was merely a matter of personal, unlearned opinion and conviction until Bible scholars studied the matter and found evidence that God did have a part in the establishment of the canon.
And these Bible scholars have also learned that the authors of the New Testament canon quoted mostly from the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text that the Protestant Old Testament Canon is based upon. And these Bible scholars have also learned that the authors of the New Testament canon quoted as Scripture writings that no Baptist today recognizes as inspired Scripture. Look at James 4:5, for example,
James 4:5. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: "He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us"? (NASB, 1995)
James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? (KJV, 1769)
Jam 4:5 Doe ye thinke that the Scripture saith in vaine, the spirit that dwelleth in vs lusteth to enuy? (KJV, 1611)
Have you ever asked the Holy Spirit to tell you where in the Scriptures James found that quote?
The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament that the Apostles used and quoted from when writing their New Testament documents was very different from the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament that the KJV was translated from. How can something that different still be the very word of God and how can anyone trust it today? The Apostles did not have the original Old Testament documents; they quoted from a very human Greek translation of the Old Testament that very few (if any) Baptist scholars believe was as accurate as the very different Masoretic Text. If the Masoretic text, from which the KJV and most other translation of the Old Testament are made, is essentially the same as the original documents, it necessarily follows that the New Testament documents are faulty because they relied upon and quoted from a very different and, therefore, necessarily faulty text of the Old Testament!
Which version of the Old Testament is “the Infallable, Inerrant Word of Almighty God, completely trustworth in all that it says, completely correct in all that it says. Without ANY ERROR. 0%.” Is it the Septuagint that the Apostles used and quoted from, or is it the Masoretic text from which your Old Testament was translated from. These texts are VERY different! It is absolutely impossible for both of them to be 100% accurate! So tell me, which one is the REAL Old Testament? Theirs or yours? If yours is the real Old Testament, their New Testament can NOT be an accurate New Testament because the Apostles who wrote it quoted from the wrong Old Testament!!!
It is very easy to pretend to be spiritual and claim that the Holy Spirit revealed to you that both the Old and the New Testaments are “the Infallable, Inerrant Word of Almighty God, completely trustworth in all that it says, completely correct in all that it says. Without ANY ERROR. 0%.” It is much more difficult to spend two or three hours studying the Bible to learn the truth. And it is very much more difficult to spend two or three decades studying the Bible at Princeton Seminary or some conservative seminary that you label as liberal for the simple reason that they have gone to the bother to study the Bible rather than huff and puff and attempt to blow down their stone buildings.
And it is very much easier to pretend that you are right and call me a liberal or an apostate than it is for you to explain away the facts that absolutely prove that you are mistaken in your view of the inerrancy of the Bible.
It's great to say what you said in theory. Now prove your words.
Which Bible is 100 percent accurate? Could it be the Aramaic version that it appears Jesus referred to. Could it be the Hebrew and Aramaic OT? Could it be the MT which was written much later. Could it be the LXX which has many versions referred to as the LXX just like the KJV has many. Could it be the KJV 1611, NASU95, NAS, NIV, RSV, NLT, NKJV, UBS 4th Rev. UBS 4, UBS 3, Nestle Aland, TR, ot a number of others. Which one is the Bible?
It is possible all of them are wrong, but it is not possible for them to all be right if there is only one accurate one.