The Bible claims Inerrancy

Thanks brother Chet, I was hoping someone would lay out the inerrancy argument using scripture. I think it is sad that on a christian board there is a need to prove that the Bible is God's word and that it is inerrant. Thanks for taking the time to show Biblically why you and I and others trust God's word, The Bible.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Thanks for taking the time to show Biblically why you and I and others trust God's word, The Bible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we all agree that we trust the Bible. Where we frequently differ is on comprehension:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Chet. Good post!

 

Should this not be in the theology room, as Dr. Bob said?

 

Let me preface this post by saying that the focus of this discussion is WHETHER THE BIBLE IS INERRANT, Bible meaning the Protestant Canon, to the exclusion of the Catholic, Orthodox, etc. canons.

That being said, none of what you quoted supports the contention that the Bible is inerrant. It only hints around at it and we are left to bend what the Bible says to fit our hope that it contains no errors in anything it addresses.

Chet wrote:
&gt; Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

All scripture is inspired by God, just like I am inspired by Shakespeare or you are inspired by a good deed you saw. Scripture has the purpose of training for righteousness, not training in science or history.

&gt; Luke 24:44-45
&gt; John 10:34-35
&gt; 1 Tim 5:18 1 Cor. 9:9-10 and Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7
&gt; 2 Pet 3:16

All are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

&gt; Jesus claimed that Gods word is truth. John 17:17

But the canon is not literally God's Word.

&gt; John 14:6

Irrelevant.

&gt; John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

You do know what logos is, don't you?

&gt; Heb 1:2
&gt; Titus 1:2
&gt; 1 Tim 2:7
&gt; Matt 23:35

All irrelevant.

&gt; Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Which must mean we have access to every word.

Which says nothing about the Bible.

&gt; He acknowledged that Adam and Eve were created by God, that they were real living
human beings, not just symbols of mankind/woman kind.

No he didn't.

&gt; Matt 19:3-5

This says nothing about Adam and Eve's historicity (and is also irrelevant).

&gt; He verified event connected with the flood of Noah’s day, that there was an ark and the
flood destroyed everyone not in the ark.

No he didn't, unless such an implicit verification of historicity can also be claimed for people in his parables.

&gt; Matt 24:38-39
&gt; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (KJV)

THIS is the point of the passage: the coming of the Son of Man.

&gt; Twice He authenticated God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his
wife. Matt 24:38-39

Ditto to the above.

&gt; Matt 10:15
&gt; Matt 10:23
&gt; Luke 17:28-29

Ditto. And the topic is INERRANCY, not historicity.

&gt; He accepted plainly the events of Jonah an the great fish: Matt 12:40

Irrelevant to inerrancy.

&gt; He authenticated each of these events as factual history to be completely trusted.

Where does Jesus say, "These are factual history to be completely trusted"? Nowhere! You're putting words in his mouth to strengthen your argument.

&gt; Including the creation, flood and miracles. Obviously Jesus felt we had a reliable Bible!

Reliable for salvation and righteousness, not reliable for science and history.

&gt; How can anyone believe with all the references to the “Scripture” given in the Scripture think that some of the Scripture is just errant.

It doesn't claim its own inerrancy. It also contains contradictions. At the same time, there are transmission errors, because we no longer have the "original text" of the books.

&gt; How would you even go about deciding which is true, which is false?

The same way we do that with anything. Reasoning. The scientific method.

&gt; In fact, all the books in the OT have been alluded to by the authors in the NT with one exception, Esther. I think Esther is inspired as well. Read it you will know why.

Many apocryphal books are also alluded to in the NT. Does that mean that the Catholics are right and we are wrong?

&gt; 2 Pet 1:19-21
&gt; Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV)

There's much more to the Bible than its prophecy.

Any questions?

 

Thanks BW. I sometimes forget that this argument is still going on. Thank God there are whole communities of baptist life where this is no longer an issue.

I'm glad someone is still jumping in and clarifying the debate.

Joshua

 

Thanks, Joshua.

And furthermore, if inerrancy of the Protestant canon is SO important, SO fundamental, SO worth-driving-moderate-Southern-Baptists-out-of-the-convention, why in heaven's name isn't it stated EXPLICITLY, without any translational or exegetical hoop-jumping?

If inerrancy is SO important, why are there not stone tablets with the original words, preserved by cherubim with flaming swords, for all to see for all time? Why do we have to rely on these highly evolved texts with all their omissions, additions, etc.?

God cares NOTHING about verbal, literal inerrancy. Jesus speaks to inerrantists today through his ministry to the Pharisees. The Word of God cannot be mapped out in a book. The Word of God became flesh and dwelled among us. THAT Word of God is truly without error.

Can I get an amen?

 

While I keep reading this silly statements that today's inerrantists are like the Pharisees, then a tit-for-tat would be that the deified opinions of the nonerrantists are like the Saducees, who exalt their opinions and their resonings above the revealed Scripture. There has to be a Final Authority on ALL or what else could you believe? Only what the Saducees tell us?
A correction to BWSmith, inspiration of Shakespeare is not the same as that of the men who penned the original writings. They were inspired from God Himself: "theopnuestos" and Peter writes that these holy men of God wrote the Scripture as they were moved (carried along) by the Holy Spirit. ( 2 Peter 1:19-21 )
A comment to Joshua: It is sad when today those who claim Christ say those who believe that the Bible is plenary and verbally inspired by God are in the minority, as we should be, I think you speak of the great apostacy of our day, which it appears you are apart of. see Rom 1:22, Oh yeah, all the Scripture I mentioned above is subject to whether or not you deem it to be trustworthy

 

BW, Why waste so much time trying to find problems with the Bible. Why not embrace the Bible and the Jesus it proclaims and use your time and energy to win some souls. I almost get a feeling you enjoy finding the "flaws" that you point out. In all sincerity and no joking or sarcasm I used to do that to and then a strange thing happened to me - I got saved - and I just didn't want to spend time finding what was wrong with the Bible anymore I just wanted share My Jesus and My Bible with everyone. IF you want "flaws with the Bible I tell you one that I found when I was looking many years ago. Each Gospel has a different saying for what was above the cross of Christ but guess what I don't care anymore, because I believe GOD wrote the Bible and could put whatever he wanted in it and I will embrace it with childlike faith. I'll pray for you BW and hope you are not where I was many years ago when I believed as you do now

 

Amen

(no need to ask for one)

 

BWSmith writes in response to how we know scripture is true:

&gt;The same way we do that with anything. Reasoning. The scientific method.&lt;

I agree that we know what is true to a great extent by the scientific method (which produces empirical evidence) and that it is one component of reasoning. However, I think if you look at what you (or anyone for that matter) believes to be true, it is a combination of faith and the empirical.

Look at the scientific method itself, it is a philosophy that one must take on faith, after all it can't be tested by the empirical. Too often people try to leave out or not acknowledge the faith aspect in all of our lives.

Now maybe I misunderstood you and you were including faith as part of reasoning, if so I apologize ahead of time.

 

RevKevin wrote:
&gt; A correction to BWSmith, inspiration of Shakespeare is not the same as that of the men who penned the original writings. They were inspired from God Himself: "theopnuestos"

That's what I said, just like I am inspired by the writings of Shakespeare himself or the good deeds of someone I saw. Do you want to get more specific on the mode of inspiration? The context does NOT support divine dictation, if that is what you want it to hint around at.

&gt; and Peter writes that these holy men of God wrote the Scripture as they were moved (carried along) by the Holy Spirit. ( 2 Peter 1:19-21 )

No, this is the PROPHECY of scripture, not scripture itself. Plus, he doesn't exclude the apocrypha with this statement, does he? Are we wrong and the Catholics right?

&gt; A comment to Joshua: It is sad when today those who claim Christ say those who believe that the Bible is plenary and verbally inspired by God are in the minority, as we should be,

Verbal plenary inspiration is a heresy that has led to the breakup of the SBC. The fewer people we have subscribing to its false gospel, the better.

 

Briguy wrote:
&gt; BW, Why waste so much time trying to find problems with the Bible.

I'm finding problems with your conservative doctrine, not problems with the Bible.

&gt; Why not embrace the Bible and the Jesus it proclaims and use your time and energy to win some souls.

Are you paying attention?

&gt; I almost get a feeling you enjoy finding the "flaws" that you point out.

I'm not talking about flaws. Where have I discussed flaws? I'm talking about proper interpretation and understanding of the Bible.

&gt; In all sincerity and no joking or sarcasm I used to do that to and then a strange thing happened to me - I got saved - and I just didn't want to spend time finding what was wrong with the Bible anymore I just wanted share My Jesus and My Bible with everyone.

So you aren't really addressing me, you're addressing your former self and hoping that what I am now is the same as what you were then?

&gt; IF you want "flaws with the Bible I tell you one that I found when I was looking many years ago. Each Gospel has a different saying for what was above the cross of Christ but guess what I don't care anymore, because I believe GOD wrote the Bible and could put whatever he wanted in it and I will embrace it with childlike faith.

Why is that a "flaw"? Were the gospel writers newspaper reporters, jotting down every minute aspect of Jesus's ministry on earth with objective accuracy?

&gt; I'll pray for you BW and hope you are not where I was many years ago when I believed as you do now.

I am insulted every time you suggest that I am not saved just because I disagree with you over the unBiblical, heretical doctrine of inerrancy.

Inerrancy is the cornerstone to fundamentalism, and fundamentalism leads you into intolerance, arrogance, confusion, and separation from the world around you. That's not the real Jesus that died on the cross for all mankind. I'll pray for you that you understand why fundamentalism is the greatest tool Satan has ever devised for dividing the brothers of Christ.

Inerrancy is the handiwork of the Pharisees, who believed that they alone had the Torah (Jer 8:8). Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.

 

Will wrote:
&gt; BWSmith writes in response to how we know scripture is true:
&gt;&gt;The same way we do that with anything. Reasoning. The scientific method.&lt;&lt;

&gt; I agree that we know what is true to a great extent by the scientific method (which produces empirical evidence) and that it is one component of reasoning. However, I think if you look at what you (or anyone for that matter) believes to be true, it is a combination of faith and the empirical.

Amen. Our understanding is a combination of faith and reason. Pure reason leads to atheism, and pure faith leads to cult-worship. The path of Christ is one that combines the two.

 

BW,

You seem (through repeated references) to be hung up on the canon/apocrypha/Catholic thing. Not sure if you are an ex-Catholic nor does it matter. But here's my contention: We (I hope) all agree that the original manuscripts were penned by men as God inspired them to write His thoughts, without error. Charles Stanley says, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16) We understand this to mean that the whole Bible is inspired in that holy men of God "were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21) to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of Scripture as it appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then there's the copying that had to take place through the ages, however the methods used in copy were stringent and meticulous. Then there was the fight over what comprised the Canon. Then we have the translation from the Hebrew and Greek to English. And finally, there have been several reputable translation teams over some 400 years who have produced, for the most part, agreeing translations, with the differences being small percentage wise of the entire Bible.

Here's the dilemma, and I'm diving in my bomb shelter as I write to prepare for "incoming": If God went to the trouble to inspire about 40 different men to write 66 books over 1500 years, do you think God stopped there and said, "Now let's see what a mess man can make of what I've given him." I believe with all my heart that God did not stop there! God brought together His choice of people to decide the Canon. He brought forth His choice of people to translate and give us several reliable English translations, of which if the serious Holy Spirit indwelt student of the Bible avails him/herself of them, can receive exactly what God intended them to receive. Notice I did not say comprehend. There are difficult "hard sayings" in scripture that will not be fully understood until we are in the presence of The Holy One.

That, in a nutshell is what I feel in my heart when I say the Bible is God's inerrant Word. There's no "wiggle room" to what is written or intended to be understood, only in how we understand it.

If you really step back and look at what the theistic evolutionist has to contend with that scripture "says," it's simply overwhelming!

 

Chet wrote:
&gt; BW wrote:
&gt;&gt; That being said, none of what you quoted supports the contention that the Bible is inerrant. It only hints around at it and we are left to bend what the Bible says to fit our hope that it contains no errors in anything it addresses

&gt; Does the Bible hint around about Salvation, or can I take it as face value?

John 3:16 is very explicit about salvation: belief in Christ as the Son of God.

&gt; The Bible does more than hint around. It claims that God who is the Word cannot lie.

Amen.

&gt; This God used Scripture as proof text. He left no hint that the Text He used could be an err, or just symbolic.

Wrong. The Bible says no such thing.

&gt;&gt; All scripture is inspired by God, just like I am inspired by Shakespeare...

&gt; Not so, the Bible claims that it was more than just a simple motivation but the fact that the Holy Spirit actually was the author.

So tell me precisely why your "inspired" is a better translation than my "inspired"? If Paul really meant "God-dictated" (which he doesn't), it would be a profound statement of supreme significance, unique to both testaments and contradicting Jer 1:1. Further, Paul gives no limits on the extent of the canon with this statement. He qualifies his statement in matters of righteousness. His informal treatment of this statement means that he cannot possibly mean divine dictation. The fact that the very words of the originals have not been preserved is testimony to my version of "inspiration" over yours.

&gt;&gt;All are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
&gt; All the scripture I give is relevant. It proves BW that Jesus authenticated the OT.

Jesus never said that the OT was "God-breathed", though. THAT's why your gospel references are irrelevant.

&gt; Even Gen. 1- 11 Of course I realize Scripture does not change your mind, only science.

What a ridiculous accusation.

&gt; Let me say just one thing about that, your SCIENCE can be false

As can be your theology.

&gt; But Jesus is the ROCK that cannot be moved I will trust in Him.

This has nothing to do with the Bible.

&gt;&gt; But the canon is not literally God's Word.
&gt; Oh yes it is BW. Like I said all of the Cannon that we have can be cross referenced with the other cannon. Jesus did not quote, nor Paul, nor Peter, nor James, not the writer of Hebrews, nor John any part of the 14 books of the apocrypha.

You left out Jude, who quotes both the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. (D'oh!)

&gt; Also it is clear that proximally 40 different human authors, on different contents and different times who did not know each other, yet there is not ONE single contradiction in any of the 66 books we have.

Actually, there are quite a few, although when divine intervention is assumed, even the most outrageous contradictions can be harmonized semi-credibly with a few mental gymnastics.

&gt; Prophecy from the OT written years before the NT are perfectly fullfilled. This is further evidence for ONE real author, God.

Or evidence that Isaiah didn't write all of Isaiah, but that's another thread.

&gt;&gt;You do know what logos is, don't you?

&gt; 3056 logos (log'-os); from 3004; something said (including the thought); by
implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):

&gt; we see that this WORD, (logos) did
something, it dwelt among us, this same logos claimed it was truth, not just spoke truth, but was truth.

And the logos is Jesus, not the Protestant canon.

&gt; BW, I guess I don’t know how to say this, but are you reading the scripture given in my post? I shake my head not having a clue as to how to approach this differently.

You could try eliminating your quote-and-switch attempts to prove that the Bible claims inerrancy. You claim that:

- God's Word is true
(but God's Word is not the canon)
- Jesus cannot lie
(but Jesus never claims the inerrancy or mode of inspiration of the written canon)
- prophecy is dictated from God
(but prophecy is prophecy and not the text of the scriptures)
- all scripture is God-breathed...for righteousness
(but both "all scripture" and "God-breathed" are too ambiguous to discern anything, and the "righteousness" qualifer eliminates the notion of inerrancy in "all matters addressed")

&gt; Jesus teaches us from factual events in the OT as I posted above, yet you fail to see it.

He does NOT verify their factuality. He teaches from them in the same way that He teaches from the parables.

&gt; That is the most weird way of understanding... (ridiculous analogy snipped)

&gt; Tell me this, to make it easier. Which parts of the 66 books are not Scripture.

All parts of the 66 books are "scripture". So is the apocrypha. So are the pseudopigrapha. Not all parts of the body of "scripture" constitute the Protestant canon. Yet all scripture is inspired by God, but not divinely guarded from error in what they say.

&gt; What parts are literal, and what parts are symbolic.

Some parts are purely symbolic. Some parts are purely literal. Some parts were intended to be literal, but their sources were intended to be symbolic.

&gt; What parts can I trust, and what parts are Satan’s doing.

Satan's doing is imprinting the doctrine of inerrancy in as many churches as possible so that their work is sure to get off track.

&gt; What parts should be in the 66 books, and which should not. Should there be more BW? Would BW come forward with the real Bible for us?

Do you want an inerrant Bible? It will be empty. The Bible is manna from heaven, not steak and lobster. Partake from it on its own terms and you will be satisfied.

 

Wells wrote:
&gt; You seem (through repeated references) to be hung up on the canon/apocrypha/Catholic thing. Not sure if you are an ex-Catholic nor does it matter.

Not an ex-Catholic, but it is unavoidable that, if Biblical books are supposedly divinely dictated, there should be a natural dichotomy between books that were and were not written by God Himself. How can we be sure that we distinguished them properly when the early church fathers saw fit to include the Apocrypha?

&gt; But here's my contention: We (I hope) all agree that the original manuscripts were penned by men as God inspired them to write His thoughts, without error.

The Bible is without error in regard to its testimony to the Word of God, both in prophecy and the Word that became flesh. Hence, it is authoritative in matters of faith and practice.

&gt; Then there's the copying that had to take place through the ages, however the methods used in copy were stringent and meticulous.

But if a single jot or tittle is missing from the originals, does that constitute an error? Also, not all changes to the text were accidental. Many were intentional. Does that constitute a redefinition of the "original text" or a source of error?

&gt; Then there was the fight over what comprised the Canon. Then we have the translation from the Hebrew and Greek to English. And finally, there have been several reputable translation teams over some 400 years who have produced, for the most part, agreeing translations, with the differences being small percentage wise of the entire Bible.

Right.

&gt; God brought together His choice of people to decide the Canon. He brought forth His choice of people to translate and give us several reliable English translations, of which if the serious Holy Spirit indwelt student of the Bible avails him/herself of them, can receive exactly what God intended them to receive.

I agree, but with the caveat that the Bible is manna from heaven and not steak and lobster from heaven. It gives us what we need, but not necessarily what we want. We can feel confident that those who seek to find the message of salvation from scripture will find it; it's too simple to miss. Those who seek more than that may or may not find it.

&gt; That, in a nutshell is what I feel in my heart when I say the Bible is God's inerrant Word. There's no "wiggle room" to what is written or intended to be understood, only in how we understand it.

Do you think that moderate Baptists were really outside your perception of the "wiggle room" to the extent that they needed to be removed from SBC organizations?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BWSmith:
John 3:16 is very explicit about salvation: belief in Christ as the Son of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only one question BW: How do you know this is not a part that is errant? It is the words of Jesus, the same Jesus who attributed Mosaic authorship to the Pentatuech. You say Christ was wrong on one and right on the other. How do you know which is which? Perhaps this was just a fable ... uhhh ... parable, not meant to be taken literally.