Biblical inerrancy

[farouk]

Why should we believe the Bible, and its record about the Lord Jesus?

(This is not my question, but it's the next, logical question, if we play down the complete trustworthiness of the Bible.)

 

[Grazer]

Why should we believe the Bible, and its record about the Lord Jesus?

(This is not my question, but it's the next, logical question, if we play down the complete trustworthiness of the Bible.)

That's where history and the study of historical documents comes in. I linked to an interview with Professor Craig Blomberg which covers why the Bible is reliable. I've re-posted it below;

http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[farouk]

That's where history and the study of historical documents comes in. I linked to an interview with Professor Craig Blomberg which covers why the Bible is reliable. I've re-posted it below;

http://publicchristianity.org/library/can-we-trust-the-bible

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

If the truth were known I probably might have studied those areas just a little, too.

But I don't think it's helpful to try to debunk inerrancy, verbal inspiration, or similar terms, because people who use them generally mean that the Bible is reliable.

(Maybe I've missed something, though, about what you meant.)

 

[Grazer]

If the truth were known I probably might have studied those areas just a little, too.

But I don't think it's helpful to try to debunk inerrancy, verbal inspiration, or similar terms, because people who use them generally mean that the Bible is reliable.

(Maybe I've missed something, though, about what you meant.)

It's not about debunking those terms and I apologize if that's how its coming across though I don't see the bible as inerrant. I completely believe the bible is given to us by God, written by humans guided by the holy spirit. That to me though, does not mean the bible is completely contradiction and difference free because it just blatantly isn't. Smaller has given some examples of some. I don't buy the argument that the differences are only apparent because I'm sinful and don't know how to read properly.

The bible is written as it is for a reason. Part of being a Christian is to wrestle with these things. I think there is so much more going on than straight history and a journey is more fun with others.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[wayseer]

Total inerrancy is vital, otherwise it completely undermines the integrity of what is considered God's word.

Why?

It may well undermine your own sense of integrity but there other who don't need water tight cases to survive.

 

[wayseer]

The inerrancy of the Bible is proven by Jesus' reliance upon and references to it. Therefor if we consider that the bible may be errant, we question the very basis of our faith.

Well, if the Biblical texts are anything to go by it seems Jesus Got it wrong. Check out the Jesus quotes from Isaiah in Luke 4 and not the differences.

 

[Kaliani]

The bible is written as it is for a reason.

Do you mean that God allowed the inconsistencies in the Bible for His divine purpose?

 

[Grazer]

Do you mean that God allowed the inconsistencies in the Bible for His divine purpose?

In a way. More that he used such a method where inconsistencies could arise rather than he deliberately put them in there.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kaliani]

In a way. More that he used such a method where inconsistencies could arise rather than he deliberately put them in there.

Why, do you think? To make us see that we still need direct revelation from Him? He didn't want us to put Him aside because now we have words inspired by Him?

 

[Grazer]

Why, do you think? To make us see that we still need direct revelation from Him? He didn't want us to put Him aside because now we have words inspired by Him?

No idea but throughout history God has used people for his purposes. Jesus came down and became one of us. The Bible seems to follow this M.O.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[wayseer]

Do you mean that God allowed the inconsistencies in the Bible for His divine purpose?

I guess so - if you go with your premise.

For me, men wrote the Bible.

 

[smaller]

It's not about debunking those terms and I apologize if that's how its coming across though I don't see the bible as inerrant. I completely believe the bible is given to us by God, written by humans guided by the holy spirit. That to me though, does not mean the bible is completely contradiction and difference free because it just blatantly isn't. Smaller has given some examples of some. I don't buy the argument that the differences are only apparent because I'm sinful and don't know how to read properly.

The bible is written as it is for a reason. Part of being a Christian is to wrestle with these things. I think there is so much more going on than straight history and a journey is more fun with others.

I would utterly fail in any attempts to describe how much deep respect I have for the written Word.

I noted differences prior as could any 'good' Word student. It is impossible to read same and not run headlong into these variations unless one sat in the pew and took every word that inerrant claimers claim to be a fact without studying themselves.

In your mention of history above, the churches of orthodoxy have used their historical claims to 'sole authority' in determinations for quite a long time as the standard of interpretations. Many a fine and highly educated scholar have blown massive holes in that type of filter. One of my personal fav's that 'got me off' that direction many years ago is Gerhard Maier who pointed out some simplicities of the difficulties in trying to run 'eternal matters' through 'historical sifters,' concluding, in short, that it doesn't work or compute, never has, never will. From the historical and archeological perspectives, a great majority of scholars, many within the theological arena, have concluded the flood and the Exodus NEVER HAPPENED. I am not in that camp btw.

Part of the reason I cast a weary eye on the common form of claimers of inerrancy is, that claim is usually followed shortly thereafter by 'their' also supposedly inerrant dissections of same, which are often to proselytize to their sect, and even more largely to your personal detriment if one does not adhere to their personally inerrant dissections.

One can take just about any given term in the text and find a tremendous number of variations.

Look at another example, the 2nd coming, and how much dissension and division has been raised over that single matter. And no wonder. Another poster here put this up here a few days ago and I copied it because it was an excellent example of the same matters under discussions here:

· [FONT=&quot]In Mark 13:26 He comes with CLOUDS.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 24:27 He comes as LIGHTNING. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 16:15 He comes as a THIEF. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 25:6 He comes as the BRIDEGROOM. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 22:16 and 2:28 He comes as the MORNING STAR. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Malachi 4:2 He comes as the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS ARISING. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Philippians 3:20-21 He comes in RESURRECTION POWER. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 He comes in FLAMING FIRE. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Malachi 3:1-3 He comes to His priesthood company as REFINER'S FIRE and FULLER'S SOAP. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 He comes IN THE AIR. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Hosea 6:3 and James 5:7-8 He comes as the RAIN. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 19:11 & 14 He comes on a WHITE HORSE. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 25:31-34 He comes as KING. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 1 Peter 5:4 He comes as the CHIEF SHEPHERD. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 16:27 He comes WITH HIS ANGELS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Jude 14 He comes WITH HIS SAINTS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In John 14:18 He comes TO HIS SAINTS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 2 Thessalonians 1:10 He comes IN HIS SAINTS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Jude 14 & 15 He comes in JUDGMENT. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 22:12 He comes WITH REWARDS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 He comes with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, with the trump of God.[/FONT]

Even on matters of salvation, I partook in an online group setting on that matter alone and in just a few short minutes the group was able to detail scriptures of more than 60 distinct variations on 'how' to be saved ranging from as little as giving a cold cup of water to one of the least of His to personal martyrdom.

It was an eye opener to say the least.

The resolution for all of these matters came for me when I stepped onto the ground of parable and allegory, and therein The Word is as they say, SPOT ON PERFECT, more perfect than the 'worldly' notion that inerrantists see. And the variations are made to force push in that direction. If one looks there, they will see exactly 'why' the variations are placed there. Discounting real and genuine physical events is NOT a requirement to go there either.

I will show a couple more examples of this type of trouble.

Here are two quite contradictory statements from Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:34
Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Now, think for just a moment here. At the time Paul lived there were obviously obviously sinners who were far more evil than Paul, by leaps and bounds. Paul did not say 'I used to be' chief, but deployed the present tense, I am.

Yet at the same time he commands NOT sinning.

Another look is at the LAW. Keep in mind now that many claim that Paul said we are not under the law. But then look at Paul, the chief of sinners, and see 'who' the LAW is for:

1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers

or here:

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

One will not, can not get through these matters without confronting them.

Every dispute that exists in christiandom revolves around these abundant variations, and why not? They are certainly set there so that people take up the bait. And those who are led in honesty by God, will be led into understandings. And those who are not interested will FALL in disputes. And this by the exact intention of God in Christ.

Doors exist in the text. They are QUITE SECURELY LOCKED, BOUND and SEALED.

Don't expect to see a 'physical door' because it will not and can not be found.

Hosea 9:6
For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the pleasant places for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns shall be in their tabernacles.

enjoy

s

 

[rrowell]

Often, with the promulgation of 'innerancy' comes with it the idea of rigid identical statements of fact.

The Word is simply not constructed this way. Will show 3 scriptures, all identical as to statement, yet all 3 vary. Is the construct and placement of these Words/sentence structures the basis of being inerrant? Or are the statements, 3, in what they convey inerrant? They are, all 3, supposedly direct quotes of God.

Yet they are not identical:

Deuteronomy 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matthew 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.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

All three of these statements are Gods Own Words.

Now, pick the inerrant statement.

Get the drift? Inerrant does not imply rigidity in exact Word for Word REPLICATION.

Often this issue comes up with the recordings of the Gospel writers. Many of Jesus' Own Statements VARY and often they vary for VERY PRECISE differences in recordings.

These same statements will also and often point back to Old Testament Words of God as well, and again, there will be variations.

These variations are with DIVINE INTENTIONS.

In part they are to move us OFF the ideas of exact rigidity and move us INTO understandings of deeper intentions.

If a person gets caught up in the false idea of exact replications of these things they will soon come to soil and spoil the party and possibly stumble in their own ideas, which they probably should.

They are then not 'inerrant' as to rigidity of Word for Word statements. That argument utterly FAILS on the surface!

Any half wit can see that Jesus' Own Words are varied from man to man recording of same for the SAME EVENTS. What is much more difficult is to peer behind the curtains on these matters of variations.

The Gospel writers, via the Inspiration of the Spirit INTENTIONALLY vary the Words of Jesus Christ. They also intentionally vary the accounts themselves as to details.

Take ANY parable account for example and you will assuredly find NUMEROUS variations. Numerous. And they are so BY DIVINE INTENT. The most important PARABLE statements of Jesus Himself, in the parable of the Sower from 3 writers VARIES WIDELY from man to man.Some have speculated that is so because they were repeated teachings that varied with the teacher speaker, Jesus.

But most often this is NOT the case. They vary for other reasons. I've even read that some scholars, in trying to 'enforce' rigid infallibility will ascribe MULTIPLE events. The loaves and fishes account is another of these same. The details vary. So inerrant claimers, having no where else to go from their boxed corner, MUST go to multiple events in order to have consistency OR they have DIFFERENT EXACT WORDS OF JESUS.

Sorry. Doesn't compute. There were not multiple individuals possessed with LEGION nor were there MULTIPLE events of loaves and fishes.

Paul himself VARIED his own factual statements, and ALSO did so by the inspiration of THE SPIRIT. Could point to MANY of this same type of 'action' in Paul's Words.

This is a way to know the marks of Spirit Inspiration. A phony is easily unearthed. The writers themselves work with a Divine Methodology that is HIDDEN from view, yet it is in PLAIN SIGHT. It's also part of the reason there is soooo much DIVISION.
Did Jesus provide an abundance of DIFFERENT STATEMENTS for the SAME EVENTS? One might certainly think so if you stacked up each writers quotes .....because they ALL differ.

What is harder to understand is WHY they differ. That, dear reader is for YOU to personally discover.

One of my favorite examples of this type of variation is found in the account of the man possessed by Legion. ALL 3 writers of this 'same account' vary in their details, even in the details of Jesus Own Words and those of Legion. Even the courses of actions proceeding to and proceeding the events VARY.

These matters have PLAGUED many a biblical scholar. But, beneath these variations are DIVINE GEMS of understandings that are exactly MEANT to frustrate the surface readers. When these GEMS are unearthed they will provide even MORE respect for the DIVINE methods the writers employed, not LESS.

It makes His Words and the 'handlers and recorders' beyond any doubt, DIVINE in their workings. Yet hidden from views.

IN the hands of exhaustive examinations, those WORDS will yield the fruits of their intentions. But to read them in rigidity and only on the surface brush will yield vastly less.

In such observations, for which there are many variants, it is the 'expression of the idea' and the richness in various details that are of uttermost importance, and not the rigidity of Word for Word identical statements.
The variations are placed BY DIVINE INTENT.

s

Smaller,

It seems 90% of the time I disagree with you, but to this I cannot agree more...

The Bible was written by inspired men, the inspiration gave them remembrance, they had at the time no written Bible and relied on the gift of prophetic power from the Holy Spirit to relay a message (not words) but message...

Most variance (of words not message) is able to be traced to whom they were talking to and the time and place...

You and I smaller can in fact deliver the same message without using the same words and both be of fact and truth...

It simply shows that God has a spiritual relationship with man, and not a robotic one.

 

[rrowell]

I guess so - if you go with your premise.

For me, men wrote the Bible.

As a Secretary takes dictation from her/his boss, the message from the boss is delivered, it is the pen of the Secretary but the words of the boss, that does not make the document of the secretary.

Everyone has a tendency to look at the Bible as "a book" when in fact, it is many books written by several authors on the same main subject... and of all those books by many authors you will not find one contradiction in the message of the Bible, all contradiction found in it is not the book but mans interpretation of it...

You cannot, will not find 3 books today on any subject by 3 different authors and not find contradiction in their books...

Nothing can stand up to the accuracy of the bible.

(and by the way, I saw someone here say people think the KJV is 100% accurate, that is not fact, there are not flaws in the original language, but in translation, the men that wrote the bible were inspired, the men that made any of the translations were not)

 

[smaller]

Smaller,

It seems 90% of the time I disagree with you, but to this I cannot agree more...

The Bible was written by inspired men, the inspiration gave them remembrance, they had at the time no written Bible

As much as I'd like NOT to break the hand of peace, ;) they most certainly DID have and teach from The Bible.

It's called the Old Testament, which same is cited nothing less than in several HUNDRED instances in the New Testament including around 200 in Matthew and nearly 100 times in Romans.

Paul himself cites that he taught from the Law and the Prophets. This is beyond dispute. Jesus Himself, POST resurrection taught from the Law and the Prophets.

Spiritual Inspiration goes hand in hand with 'as it is written.' The Apostles were NOT pulling their writings out of thin air in contradiction to the Old Testament.

The Holy Spirit will, to this day put DIVINE LIGHT on these matters in any who therein seek, and will not work contradictory to the written Word.

Yet, now, as then, the Word Himself is also quite living and active. Quite.

The arena of various disputes is, in part, a showing and a revealing of His Present Activity that has in fact been going on since day 1 of Adam.

s

 

[farouk]

I don't think I have anything further to add to this thread. The trumpet can't speak with an uncertain sound.

What the Word of God provides is certainty.

 

[Eventide]

Things concerning Himself...

If I were to speak on this topic to believers, or nonbelievers.. the song remains the same so to speak.

Because the absolute and undeniable (not irresistible) proof is within the ancient texts of the OT, spoken through the prophets and scripted by the scribes... the same story foretold again and again within the simple stories themselves.. all things concerning Himself..

This imo makes the word of God undeniable.. because there are literally mountains upon mountains of evidence for even the most skeptical person to consider.. as long as they're willing to listen with an unbiased attitude toward what they simply have to say.

It was all foretold centuries before it ever came to pass.. and the story is still unfolding unto this day.. and there's infinitely more to come.. in that Day.. the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ.

IMO this is what biblical innerrancy should be about.. the undeniable foretold truth of the word of God, which lives and abides for ever.. and it is for ever settled in Heaven.

 

[Eventide]

The power of God...

And this present evil world is doing everything in its power to blind every last person to the simple truth of the gospel of God concerning His Son...

And that's the only place so to speak that the rulers of this dark world cannot penetrate.. the simple living and powerful TRUTH of the GOSPEL.. and that was the Apostle to the Gentiles' mission.. to turn men from the LIES of Satan and from the darkness of this present evil world... and speak the TRUTH.. in love.

The gospel of God is the POWER of GOD unto salvation..

Think about that.. the power of God..

Everything that our heart or mind could possibly imagine, and infinitely more.. is summed up in the word of God. The GOSPEL alone meets the deepest demands of our heart and mind.. who we are.. who He is.. what's to come..

For ever settled in heaven..

All He asks in return is FAITH.. TRUSTing in Him for settling the matter entirely.. before we were even brought into this world.

God has ALL the answers.. the god of this world has NONE..

 

[Osgiliath]

I would utterly fail in any attempts to describe how much deep respect I have for the written Word.

I noted differences prior as could any 'good' Word student. It is impossible to read same and not run headlong into these variations unless one sat in the pew and took every word that inerrant claimers claim to be a fact without studying themselves.

In your mention of history above, the churches of orthodoxy have used their historical claims to 'sole authority' in determinations for quite a long time as the standard of interpretations. Many a fine and highly educated scholar have blown massive holes in that type of filter. One of my personal fav's that 'got me off' that direction many years ago is Gerhard Maier who pointed out some simplicities of the difficulties in trying to run 'eternal matters' through 'historical sifters,' concluding, in short, that it doesn't work or compute, never has, never will. From the historical and archeological perspectives, a great majority of scholars, many within the theological arena, have concluded the flood and the Exodus NEVER HAPPENED. I am not in that camp btw.

Part of the reason I cast a weary eye on the common form of claimers of inerrancy is, that claim is usually followed shortly thereafter by 'their' also supposedly inerrant dissections of same, which are often to proselytize to their sect, and even more largely to your personal detriment if one does not adhere to their personally inerrant dissections.

One can take just about any given term in the text and find a tremendous number of variations.

Look at another example, the 2nd coming, and how much dissension and division has been raised over that single matter. And no wonder. Another poster here put this up here a few days ago and I copied it because it was an excellent example of the same matters under discussions here:

· [FONT=&quot]In Mark 13:26 He comes with CLOUDS.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 24:27 He comes as LIGHTNING. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 16:15 He comes as a THIEF. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 25:6 He comes as the BRIDEGROOM. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 22:16 and 2:28 He comes as the MORNING STAR. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Malachi 4:2 He comes as the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS ARISING. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Philippians 3:20-21 He comes in RESURRECTION POWER. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 He comes in FLAMING FIRE. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Malachi 3:1-3 He comes to His priesthood company as REFINER'S FIRE and FULLER'S SOAP. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 He comes IN THE AIR. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Hosea 6:3 and James 5:7-8 He comes as the RAIN. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 19:11 & 14 He comes on a WHITE HORSE. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 25:31-34 He comes as KING. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 1 Peter 5:4 He comes as the CHIEF SHEPHERD. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Matthew 16:27 He comes WITH HIS ANGELS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Jude 14 He comes WITH HIS SAINTS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In John 14:18 He comes TO HIS SAINTS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 2 Thessalonians 1:10 He comes IN HIS SAINTS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Jude 14 & 15 He comes in JUDGMENT. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In Revelation 22:12 He comes WITH REWARDS. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 He comes with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, with the trump of God.[/FONT]

Even on matters of salvation, I partook in an online group setting on that matter alone and in just a few short minutes the group was able to detail scriptures of more than 60 distinct variations on 'how' to be saved ranging from as little as giving a cold cup of water to one of the least of His to personal martyrdom.

It was an eye opener to say the least.

The resolution for all of these matters came for me when I stepped onto the ground of parable and allegory, and therein The Word is as they say, SPOT ON PERFECT, more perfect than the 'worldly' notion that inerrantists see. And the variations are made to force push in that direction. If one looks there, they will see exactly 'why' the variations are placed there. Discounting real and genuine physical events is NOT a requirement to go there either.

I will show a couple more examples of this type of trouble.

Here are two quite contradictory statements from Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:34
Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

1 Timothy 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Now, think for just a moment here. At the time Paul lived there were obviously obviously sinners who were far more evil than Paul, by leaps and bounds. Paul did not say 'I used to be' chief, but deployed the present tense, I am.

Yet at the same time he commands NOT sinning.

Another look is at the LAW. Keep in mind now that many claim that Paul said we are not under the law. But then look at Paul, the chief of sinners, and see 'who' the LAW is for:

1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers

or here:

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

One will not, can not get through these matters without confronting them.

Every dispute that exists in christiandom revolves around these abundant variations, and why not? They are certainly set there so that people take up the bait. And those who are led in honesty by God, will be led into understandings. And those who are not interested will FALL in disputes. And this by the exact intention of God in Christ.

Doors exist in the text. They are QUITE SECURELY LOCKED, BOUND and SEALED.

Don't expect to see a 'physical door' because it will not and can not be found.

Hosea 9:6
For, lo, they are gone because of destruction: Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them: the pleasant places for their silver, nettles shall possess them: thorns shall be in their tabernacles.

enjoy

s

Excellent post!


Anyone who is given faith in the canon and words of scripture and who is aware of the biases of the various translations, never depends upon any translation for his understanding. All true seekers of truth have learned to use the scriptural system of "the sum of thy word is truth."

Psalms 119:160 "The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever."

John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth."

What the whole world considers to be the Christian Bible may have the punctuation marks in the wrong place, it may have chapter and verse breakdowns which were not inspired of God, and words that are 'questionable' when translated from one language to another, but the Holy Spirit, and not man, has seen to it that "the sum of thy word" is still to this day, the Truth.

If we cannot agree upon what is "Thy Word," then we need not be discussing what is and what is not Truth.

 

[ivdavid]

Part of the reason I cast a weary eye on the common form of claimers of inerrancy is, that claim is usually followed shortly thereafter by 'their' also supposedly inerrant dissections of same, which are often to proselytize to their sect, and even more largely to your personal detriment if one does not adhere to their personally inerrant dissections.

I've gone through your posts here and find myself agreeing with your observations but not your conclusions - though I feel we are divided only on semantics and not the content per se.

Could you tell me how you are exempt from your above quoted apprehension? Here, concerning the doctrine of inerrancy, you have claimed otherwise. Am I then to cast a weary eye on your claim, since it has been followed shortly thereafter by your supposedly inerrant dissection of this doctrine, which could be used to proselytize to similar adherents(of errancy, if I may), and even more largely to my personal detriment if I do not adhere to your personally inerrant dissection on this doctrine of inerrancy, where you claim otherwise?
Please note, I myself am not actually apprehensive of your claim - I only want to know on what basis you discern and determine truth. For instance, my current guiding principles are - Scripture is not contradictory, Scripture interprets Scripture, and all glory is to God alone.

One can take just about any given term in the text and find a tremendous number of variations.

What is meant by "variations" here? And in your reference to the variations in Jesus' 2nd coming - why should any of that conclude that the Bible is not inerrant?

I'm not going to employ any theological or exegetical in-context approach to interpreting this. Simply, from purely an analysis of the figures of speech in language, I would make complete non-contradictory sense if I were to use hyperbolic/non-hyperbolic similes in say, "Jesus came as lightning" [He filled the skies for all to see just as lightning does] or if I were to use symbolic physical foreshadows of spiritual real things to come in say, "Except if any man eat the flesh of Jesus and drink His blood, he has no life in him".

We also know that a single object could have multiple adjectival descriptives (Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of man, the Lord of lords, the King of Glory, the Good Shepherd etc. all at the same time with no inconsistency at all).

As far as I know, people who believe the doctrine of inerrancy do account for the figures of speech as part of a literal reading rather than a completely literalistic reading. So, why must these 'variations'(I wouldn't call it that - they are simply different non-contradictory descriptives) imply that this doctrine of inerrancy is false?

Even on matters of salvation, I partook in an online group setting on that matter alone and in just a few short minutes the group was able to detail scriptures of more than 60 distinct variations on 'how' to be saved ranging from as little as giving a cold cup of water to one of the least of His to personal martyrdom.

If by "how", you're looking for the necessary and sufficient cause - it's only the grace of God. There could however be many other 'variations' as instrumental causes. Where again is there an undeniable contradiction to conclude upon the errancy of Scripture?

Here are two quite contradictory statements from Paul:
At the time Paul lived there were obviously obviously sinners who were far more evil than Paul, by leaps and bounds. Paul did not say 'I used to be' chief, but deployed the present tense, I am.
Yet at the same time he commands NOT sinning.

Well, what is your framework of evaluating who the greater sinner is? Is a serial-killing mass murderer a greater sinner than a self-conceited Pharisaical legalistic zealot? I'm inclined to think not - for as C.S.Lewis observed, self-pride ought to be the greatest of sins - it's the sin that made the devil, the devil. If Paul were to refer to himself as the chief of sinners, perhaps it is in the sense of having committed the chief of sins and not necessarily being the chief in number of sins or in its worldly effect. To conclude upon this as an undeniable contradiction, you must completely exhaust all other possible interpretations - have you actually done that or are you measuring another paradigm's conclusions against your own paradigm's presuppositions(which logically ought not to be done)?

And why is there a contradiction in Paul commanding us not to sin while acknowledging that he is a sinner himself? Where is the contradiction in the messenger not practicing the message he relays? If Paul is prescribing a moral principle as an ideal on one hand and describing his own failure at it on the other hand, where is the contradiction? Why have you assumed that prescriptive moral ideals must be undeniably accompanied with corresponding descriptive behavior to ensure logical consistency?

But what of Paul asking the churches to "do as he does" - is he asking them to be chief among sinners too? Why have you assumed Paul's "I am the chief of sinners" to refer to only his present-tense ongoing chiefly sinful behavior - why couldn't he be referring to his ongoing status as chief among sinners in the present and not necessarily his past behavior that merited him such an ongoing status, especially given the past tense reference in 1 Tim 1:13 ?

Another look is at the LAW. Keep in mind now that many claim that Paul said we are not under the law. But then look at Paul, the chief of sinners, and see 'who' the LAW is for

Yes, but I can't quite see what the contradiction is here, to conclude upon the errancy of Scripture.

those who are led in honesty by God, will be led into understandings. And those who are not interested will FALL in disputes. And this by the exact intention of God in Christ[for the 'variations'].

Fair enough. But how are those falling in disputes caused necessarily by contradictions in an errant Scripture? Why can't it be caused by their lack of understanding of these seemingly contradictory parts of inerrant and/or infallible Scripture [aka paradoxes]?

Exactly no 'transliteration' can be, by nature, inerrant.

But does the doctrine of inerrancy make such claims? I'm inclined to think otherwise given this article from the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy -

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Is the construct and placement of these Words/sentence structures the basis of being inerrant? Or are the statements, 3, in what they convey inerrant?

we certainly would not say that the words of Satan or any man's statements recorded therein are 'infallible Words of God or His Christ.' Unless such Words are noted as 'thus sayeth the Lord' or the Words of Jesus, Himself they are NOT infallible, but a 'recording of men's words or the words of satan or devils.'

Again, does inerrancy deny variant selections of material in parallel accounts? Does it deny the reporting of falsehoods?

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.


Just to make sure if I've got it correctly, I've understood "inerrancy" to mean that Scripture, interpreted as God wills it, is both consistent within itself and with the observations of the entire real world without any contradictions. I've understood "Infallibility" to mean that though Scripture might be errant, it infallibly achieves whatever its purpose was set to. I am presently inclined to believe that the original texts are inerrant while the translations are inerrant to the extent that they are faithful to the original and infallible otherwise.