Biblical Inerrancy vs. Biblical Infallibility

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

If the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are in any way limited in Inerrancy then it cannot be used to "correct" or "instruct" or "reprove" or "teaching", as it will have errors itself. Further if the Bible in the Original Autographs are not completely Inerrant, then God is guilty of being a false witness as His Word is fallible and cannot be completely trusted. This is impossible.

 

Would say Inerrancy means no mistakes or errors at all in the text, same way KJVO sees their translation, while Infallibility means that while known errors and mistakes, the doctrines and message are fully trustworthy and authoritative!

 

No translation can claim Inerrancy, but valid ones can claim to be infallible!

 

Biblical errancy without exception involves one or more of three issues. There are no perfect human interpertes. There are no perfect translations. And a problem with a translation can be do to a known manuscript variant that is not a word of God.

 

I am not aware that inerrantists insist that the gospel writers place all the events of Jesus' life in chronological order. Who makes that claim?

 

Just because it's taught in seminaries doesn't make it right. William lane Craig has many theological issues, he is a philosopher not a theologian.

I don't disagree because im afraid, what condescending nonsense.

 

Making claims without verifiable evidence is the stock and trade of false teachers. For example, I could say God put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. And I might seem to support that speculation with "God put everything" in the heavens.
Does the bible say that since the original autographs, absolutely no corruptions have occurred as the message was copied over and over? You can make a logical case the original autographs were without corruption, but since they do not exist, or their location is unknown, it is just a sound belief based on sound reasoning.

To claim our existing copies are without error, in light of all the variant copies of the same text, lacks merit.

 

Exactly where do the Gospels contradict each other?

2-3 examples please

 

he does have serious issues with Reformed theology, William lane Craig!

 

Cop-out.

Pro_30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Mat_4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

yes, in the Originals!

 

Correct.....but on the bright side ,you knew to post 5 Calvinist videos when you wanted to find truth

 

I was thinking more of his Neo-Apollonarianism and Molinism.