Featured Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

Not only is important to define what is meant by "inerrancy" (some have done so thus far), but also speak as to what is meant by "error" in Scripture. For example, is it an error to have 2 differing accounts of the same event? For example, is there a difference in "This is my beloved Son" and "You are my beloved Son"? If so, is this an error?

I find most of the time that inerrancy deals with conflicting narratival reports in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (with a few other places) as well as the 4 gospel accounts. But these conflicting reports are good and expected. It proves that there was not collusion in their testimonies.

Other errors are based on things like geography and historical accuracy. Errors could involve human perspective (the sun setting) or hyperbole or proverbial wisdom.

When we come down to it, these things are so minor, that inerrancy itself is becoming a battle ground for such insignificant things. It is like a country going to war with itself over what color the army uniform should be.

 

That's quite possible.

I hold that knowledge of or access to the Bible is not essential.

Yes. But that does not have to be the WRITTEN word of God.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, I agree.

 

I'm sorry but all of this is not compatible to each other.

 

The closest thing I found in the Chicago Statement to the idea of inerrancy being only in the originals is this: "Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission."

Now, I can mostly agree with this statement. However, I have to ask, at what point did my Greek NT cease to be inerrant? When the first scribe copied it and made a couple of transmissional slips? I don't think so.

Compare the UBS Greek NT and the TR or Byz. Textform or Majority text Greek NT. You will find that in John 3:16 they are exactly alike. So, anyone, at what point did John 3:16 cease being inspired and inerrant?

I developed my Bibliology not from any such statement, but well before that statement came out: from diligent study of the Scriptures, and then reading the old masters of the subject: Warfield and Gaussen (inspiration), John Burgon (textual criticism), etc.

Thanks.

 

Not essential. Those who insist on it being essential, are creating "bible worship", that is unnecessary and unbiblical.

 

I strongly disagree. Feel free to point out where I err.

 

And once again someone calls something idolatry which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Having lived in Japan for decades, I have seen real idolatry in action many, many times: people bowing down and praying to Buddhas, trees, mountains, etc. Simply believing an inerrant Bible to be essential is not "Bible worship" in any way, shape or form.

 

Excellent information. Thank you.

Old school all the way! Thumbsup

 

The recent posts show the excellent knowledge available on this site, thank you

Different accounts of the same events are not examples of error, Contradictions in fact from one translation or even in copies may be considered errors. It is a matter of degree. However, what man decides the allowance or judges the original meanings as compared to a copy. What is insignificant error and what changes the intentions of presentation.
We agree translations are man's opinions of the original meanings and are not inspired.

But since we believe the originals are the inspired Word of God . they must be inerrant not just in meaning.

We can judge what might be inerrant, but to do so suggests we know all about the complexities scripture.

Who are we to say what changes fact?

To accept that any errors( in fact) exist , is a trap. as is to suggest error exists in " unimportant" items .

What is important and what is not?

 

It's not simple to believe inerrancy, even those who claim to be inerrantist can't agree on what it means. If it only applies to originals it's only a theory that can not be confirmed this side of glory. If you apply it to more than the originals, which copy? How do you know which one is the right one? At this point isn't it just your opinion? How can opinion be essential? This looks like to me it is creating a place for the bible never intended, a place of reverence equal to that reserved only for God.

 

I don't know of anyone who claims inerrancy for the manuscripts. The ridiculousness of such has been pretty well established.

Now If you are claiming inerrancy applies to purpose (planets and such), then that is not inerrancy as described by the the Chicago Statement and most others. You say people agree, but I'm not sure that's the case. Inerrancy of words and Inerrancy of purpose are two very different things.

 

TCassidy has well answered your post, so I'll not do so except to say,

Huh?????

That statement doesn't even make sense. What in the world are you talking about? Inerrancy and purpose? What do you mean by that?

"Planets and such...." What does that even mean? I read English fluently, but that is a weird statement.

 

John said he was holding in his hands an inerrant copy, thus my reference to manuscripts.

Planets and such are reference to what TCassidy wrote earlier trying to explain the origins of the word inerrant.

Infallibility and inerrancy are not the same thing.

 

Um, I certainly wasn't holding manuscripts. Get it right.

And your point is?

 

Okay. My point was that John extended inerrancy to a copy, beyond the originals.

They aren't the same, that's the point. TCassidy ended his last statement with the phrase "defender of infallibility".

 

Now you are starting to get it. So tell me. What error exists in my Byzantine textform Greek NT that did not exist in the original manuscripts?