Featured Inspiration/Infallibility/Inerrancy: To Be or Not To Be?

sadly that is true...they shall not be condemned for this, as their salvation is based on their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I remember some 25 years ago, I was discussing the Inspiration of the Bible with my senior manager, who was a born-again Christian. He said that he did not hold to the entire Bible being the Inspired Word of God. After much discussion that was going nowhere, I decided to write to him. I asked him simple one thing. If he held to a limited Inspiration, then how can he be sure which parts of the Bible are Inspired, and which are not. I said, when Jesus says, "you must be born again", and "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life", and His promises of eternal life to those who believe in Him. How can we really be sure that these words are Inspired? He could not answer this. Full Inspiration is the ONLY possibility for any Bible-believing Christian, in the original autographs. God is not able to lie or mislead us, and therefore His Word, the Holy Bible must also reflect His Perfections.

 

Yes, it does not mean any version in any language, as these do contain errors, like copyist, transmission, omission (both accidental and deliberate), etc. No version can claim to be the Word of God, not even the LXX.

 

I can't see how Stanley can say that he holds to inerrancy of the Bible, when He casts doubts on the Adam and Eve account, says that it is not important whether the Virgin Birth as recorded in the Gospels is true, or not. Inerrancy means basically, that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching". ALL means ALL

 

No one here is saying that we witness to the lost by calling them names! There is a huge difference between a lost person, who knows nothing of the Truth of the Bible, and a so-called "pastor" of one of the biggest churches in the world, who mocks Adam and Eve and questions the Truth of the Virgin Birth!

 

No it does not. The whole question of inerrancy is of the original autographs as written by the actual writers of the Books of the Bible. There is no way that any "translation" can claim this, as there are parts to each "version" of the Bible, that are not part of the original. Lets take a couple of examples. the longer ending of Mark's Gospel as found in the King James, has been shown by the great textual critic, John Burgon, to be part of his Gospel. Most modern versions either fully omit this (verse 9-20), or have the words in brackets, with some note about the textual evidence for it. then we have the woman found in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, which again is found in the KJV, but not some later versions. Even though the oldest surviving Greek manuscript that does contain these words, is not till the 6th century A.D., yet the scholar Jerome (responsible for the Latin Vulgate) says over 100 years earlier, that this passage was found in "many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin". For these examples, like others, there is a clear difference in how the passages read, which one can claim to be the "original" reading, and therefore "inerrant"?

 

Its not about going on the attack, but standing up for Bible Truth against those who distort and undermine its "Foundation" by making false claims about what it says. It makes no difference whether the person is a John Doe, or the greatest pastor or scholar!

 

What we know about the Jesus Who saves us, is ONLY found in the Holy Bible. If the accounts about Him are "with error", then how can we believe what its says? There can be no real Jesus Christ, apart from what the Scriptures say about Him. You cannot separate the two.