Let's have another controversial post on inerrancy

[wonby1]

The Bible never says that it is inerrant, it merely claims to be inspired by God. Most interpret this to mean that since it is inspired by God, it must be inerrant.

So how many here have read the Greek and Hebrew versions? My guess is none. The funny part is that most, if not all, people who think that the Bible is inerrant have no qualms about using Greek and Hebrew translations to better understand the scriptures.

Sounds kinda crazy to me.

 

[P31Woman]

The Bible never says that it is inerrant, it merely claims to be inspired by God. Most interpret this to mean that since it is inspired by God, it must be inerrant.

So how many here have read the Greek and Hebrew versions? My guess is none. The funny part is that most, if not all, people who think that the Bible is inerrant have no qualms about using Greek and Hebrew translations to better understand the scriptures.

Sounds kinda crazy to me.

The bible does claim to tell the truth!

Hundreds of verses tell us this! Start with Ps. 119.

The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture, in the original manuscripts and when interpreted according to the intended sense, speaks truly in all that it affirms.

(several people in my church know both greek and hebrew....yes we have a well educated congregation....still that does not have anything to do with the doctrine of inerrancy)

 

[P31Woman]

Wurmbrand:
“God is ‘the Truth.’ The Bible is ‘the truth about the Truth."

Yep he believes in the doctrine of inerrancy. The bible is the truth about the Truth.

 

[P31Woman]

This one comes from the perspective on how it does more harm than good.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/18/inerrancy-is-not-a-victimless-crime/


The doctrine of “inerrancy” is often referred to as a “high view of scripture.” It is not.

It’s a low-down dirty trick to play on the Bible and on anyone who tries to read it. Inerrancy is not a victimless crime. It chases some people away from the Bible and prevents others from reading it intelligently.

Grazer,

Can you defend this? How can saying the bible in it's origional script when interpeted properly (as the author intended) does not teach us the truth?


I want you to chew on something. Could it be that educated godless men and women know the average Christian does not understand the doctrine of inerrancy or what it truly means to have the bible inspired by God or to say we are to read in it's literal form..............these godless people use that understand to sway the average believer away from God and down the wrong path?

Notice they don't write these book as "scholar works" rather the the general public. Scholars know they are wack.

Not one person who has posted against the doctrine of inerrancy even know what the doctrine really is.


The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture, in the original manuscripts and when interpreted according to the intended sense, speaks truly in all that it affirms.

 

[P31Woman]

BTW,

I do want to thank you. You help me see what I need to be doing with my preteen class.

Next month we start study the very things you and I have been in debate over....inerrancy, inspiration, revelation, illumination, etc.

I want them to know what these terms mean front to back. My hardest job is to figure out ways to make it super fun to learn and remember.

 

[farouk]

Good article, thank you

Scratch that, its not just good its a great article. Makes some great points, especially this one;

"Belief in inerrancy cannot bring us any closer to God"

...but the point is, We need to trust God in His Word and in His promises there.

 

[SlickPen50]

P31W, You didn't read Wurmbrand's quote very thoroughly. He said "we FORGOT about theology AND the bible and we lived IN THE TRUTH... The Bible, as good as it is, is MERELY the truth about the truth as near as it can be had... Can you explain, how an infinite God can be confined to finite text, and one that is missing three or four books...

You did not answer my direct questions about the details of your relationship with God. How is it that you expect others to answer your stern questions and you won't answer ours?

Why do you get so animated about this? Do you think folks are going to be won to your view with the attitude communicated through your harsh and derisive words?

I'm sure you are very nice and mean well... But, I am not remotely convinced nor even tempted to think about embracing a belief in a belief. I stand on, who needs inerrancy when we can have Christ himself?

Some day you'll see.... Thanks for your challenges.

 

[Grazer]

Can I throw something else into the mixer?

http://evidence2hope.webs.com/apps/...p-firing-the-christian-scholars-and-academics

 

[SlickPen50]

Farouk, I don't think that I was intimating nor inferring in all that I have said or written that we shouldn't trust God or the texts we have... We have been talking about the nature, the essence, the degree of value they present for a believer.

What many inerrancy advocates refuse to deal with is wheather God is knowable outside of a book. Does He still speak (I.A.s try to minimize this by referring to such a things as "special revelation" for which they shrilly denounce and deride as heresy). Can we communicate with God and He with us as in a real relationship?

I believe many inerrancy people lean on it BECAUSE they do not have and don't think its possible to have a real relationship with God. They hold to a relationship with a book is all that can be had. God's own scripture illustrates that God reveals Himself to people. And it is a theologians/heirarchal deception to say that once the bible was canonized, that God doesn't speak anymore. They have NO authoritative basis to say this and yet they do. And this is another reason they harp on inerrancy. There is control, selfishness, lack of relationship and unchristlikeness at the core of accepting inerrency.

Our friend P31W wouldn't answer our questions and the questions we were going to ask about her answers that would demonstrate it for you in technicolor. Her repeated and animated answers begin to illustrate what is really at play. Her unkind derisive comments about my not accepting "the trinity" were baseless and only nasty jabs...

If something is truly of God, no one needs defend it. It stands for itself.

 

[P31Woman]

P31W, You didn't read Wurmbrand's quote very thoroughly. He said "we FORGOT about theology AND the bible and we lived IN THE TRUTH... The Bible, as good as it is, is MERELY the truth about the truth as near as it can be had... Can you explain, how an infinite God can be confined to finite text, and one that is missing three or four books...

You did not answer my direct questions about the details of your relationship with God. How is it that you expect others to answer your stern questions and you won't answer ours?

Why do you get so animated about this? Do you think folks are going to be won to your view with the attitude communicated through your harsh and derisive words?

I'm sure you are very nice and mean well... But, I am not remotely convinced nor even tempted to think about embracing a belief in a belief. I stand on, who needs inerrancy when we can have Christ himself?

Some day you'll see.... Thanks for your challenges.

When people are severly tortured it is not uncommon to forget your own name, how to count or your family. That's what sever torture does to you. That is when you completely rest in God. You don't even have your own identity. I know this because of missionaires have told me this. They were tortured for the faith. Those people teach and preach the Bible.

If you want to claim the bible is not to be trusted go right ahead.

BTW, I don't know if you are a VOM supporter. I use to be. Check out this ministry of theirs.

http://www.biblesunbound.com/qry/mc_home.taf

 

[P31Woman]

This one comes from the perspective on how it does more harm than good.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/18/inerrancy-is-not-a-victimless-crime/


The doctrine of “inerrancy” is often referred to as a “high view of scripture.” It is not.

It’s a low-down dirty trick to play on the Bible and on anyone who tries to read it. Inerrancy is not a victimless crime. It chases some people away from the Bible and prevents others from reading it intelligently.

I was thinking about this. Yes people are chased away from the bible when they are told it's tells the us the truth.

It's not a trick or a crime it's a fact.

When Jesus told people the truth they left him in droves never to return. John 6

God did not tell us to worry about people not believing us. In fact we are probably going to be persecued. Still we are to preach and teach the Word in season and out.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This one comes from the perspective on how it does more harm than good.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/18/inerrancy-is-not-a-victimless-crime/


The doctrine of “inerrancy” is often referred to as a “high view of scripture.” It is not.

It’s a low-down dirty trick to play on the Bible and on anyone who tries to read it. Inerrancy is not a victimless crime. It chases some people away from the Bible and prevents others from reading it intelligently.

Neither this website, or you, seem to understand what is meant by "inerrancy." The blogger also begins with the assumption that inerrancy is impossible, which of course it is not. Nor does he understand that there is neither conflict or contradiction in the Bible. His personal bias against inerrancy is obvious, and he makes no effort to consider he could be wrong, nor understand the exact nature of how he is wrong. He starts from a false premise and builds upon it, negating any view he may hold as reasonable, much less valid.

There may be a few copying errors, but those are the translations, not the original manuscripts, and none of these errors change doctrine one single jot or tittle (to use Jesus' words) and a failure to understand what appear to be "contradictions" are a matter of failure to investigate or understand ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek idiom, tenses and use of figurative language to teach a literal truth. Of course there is figuration, allegory, even hyperbole in the Bible. Those express not just literal truth, but they also express the emotional involvement of the speakers quoted in the verses. For example, When the Council members complain, "The world has gone after Him!" (John 12:19) Obviously, not the whole world, because that would mean even they had. They had not. It is an expression of frustration that brings home the point that they feared Him, because He represented, to them, not blasphemy as they claimed, but of the loss of power for them His ministry represented.

One can't complain of inerrancy being a crime if one doesn't really understand what inerrancy means. Learn that. Then come back and complain -- if you still can.

 

[Grazer]

and he makes no effort to consider he could be wrong

Pot, Kettle, Black springs to mind reading this.

As for no contradictions in the Bible; yes some can be explained based on a variety of factors but it doesn't change the fact that they are there

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

and he makes no effort to consider he could be wrong

Pot, Kettle, Black springs to mind reading this.

This would be a valid criticism if I thought you had put the study and effort into it that I have. I seriously doubt that you have, as such intense study leads people to accept the Bible as literal and inerrant. C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel both started out with your view, with the same view as this blogger whom you have attempted to elevate to "expert" based on mere diatribe. Lewis and Strobel soon discovered it was they who were wrong.

As for no contradictions in the Bible; yes some can be explained based on a variety of factors but it doesn't change the fact that they are there

They aren't contradictions, they are the misunderstandings of those who think they know more than they actually do. Understanding Scripture requires an understanding of sociopolitical realities at the time any given passage was written, the personality of the writer, the circumstance of the moment, the audience to whom it was written, the time and place of the writing ... you and the blogger make no effort to understand any of those things before you choose to criticize. Lack of understanding negates any criticism offered. It becomes invalid.

 

[Grazer]

Your attitude does not help matters. For some, including me, this is a massive issue. Reading the Bible raises up some huge questions and we're trying to work our way through them. I read something like Proverbs;

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

And those 2 are contradictory statements. Looking at the Resurrection accounts, they do differ. Now they are there how they are for a reason but to say "oh its an illusion" doesn't help me and is just insulting. I know how to read! The problem for me has been not so much that I have these issues but the attitude like the one you're showing; "I believe its inerrant therefore I'm better than you" As I put, I doubt its crossed your mind that you could be wrong hence the Pot Kettle Black remark. Whether he is wrong or not is another issue.

So how about trying to help instead of just going "nope, you're wrong" SlickPen50's article laid out some brilliant points so how about we all come down off our thrones?

 

[P31Woman]

Your attitude does not help matters. For some, including me, this is a massive issue. Reading the Bible raises up some huge questions and we're trying to work our way through them. I read something like Proverbs;

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

And those 2 are contradictory statements. Looking at the Resurrection accounts, they do differ. Now they are there how they are for a reason but to say "oh its an illusion" doesn't help me and is just insulting. I know how to read! The problem for me has been not so much that I have these issues but the attitude like the one you're showing; "I believe its inerrant therefore I'm better than you" As I put, I doubt its crossed your mind that you could be wrong hence the Pot Kettle Black remark. Whether he is wrong or not is another issue.

So how about trying to help instead of just going "nope, you're wrong" SlickPen50's article laid out some brilliant points so how about we all come down off our thrones?

The best place to turn is Church. God gave us some wonderful gifts to help us learn more about Him and how he would have us to live. The Church, the bible and the Holy Spirit. Our small group and Sunday night classes are where those types of questions as asked, studied and answered on a regular basis. Sunday School and Worshp services are usually not the places for meat chewing.

Nothing you have mentioned to date on this forum has not already been discussed a million times in Church settings. It's normal.

BTW, if you want to discuss the doctrine of inerrancy you must have a clear defination. The article and slickpen are both going in the wrong direction. Neither have defined what "the accepted Chrisitan defination of inerrancy is".

Thisnumberisdisconnected does not have an attitude. This is the apologetic section of the forum. We are discuss and defend our doctrine.

 

[Free]

The best place to turn is Church.

Which church? You are likely to get different answers on everything depending on which church and even within the same church.


The problem in this thread is that it needs to be clearly stated as to what is being referred to by the phrase "biblical inerrancy"--the different translations of the Bible or the original manuscripts? Any discussion without differentiating the two is an exercise in futility.


And, yes, there are some attitudes that need to settle down a bit.

 

[P31Woman]

Which church?

The Church that helped him come to his faith in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Christians who don't have a church family tend to fall prey to Satan's attacks much easier and quicker.

Church fellowship along with bible study and prayer are simple Chrisitan disciplines that are to be encouraged not discouraged.

 

[P31Woman]

Don't know why I have this idea but I think Grazer is in the UK?

Anyway a great Church he could check out if he does not have one is The Salvation Army Chruch. They have sound doctrine and lots of great opportunities to be the hands and feet of Christ. I've never heard anyone knock the Salvation Army.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki/home

Grazer the link below I believe is right up your alley.

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/ This link is located on the bottom of the Mission page at the Salvation Army site. I think you would enjoy the salvation army church.

 

[Grazer]

Ok so let's start from the beginning. To me biblical inerrancy encompasses the below;

- The original manuscripts
- That what is recorded is the way it happened
- That there are no contradictions

Please feel free to add some more before I continue. Please do so without a "holier than thou" attitude and without belittling. If I'm wrong, I can accept that but let's do this to build each other up not score points