Which is the true Bible

[handy]

Are you telling me, that you don't believe that God could deliver His Word to us and keep it preseved in a pure form? And I mean pure like Himself, uncorruptable.


Or, are you saying, that God, did not see fit to intervine in the preservation of His Word after it was given to holy men?


I'm not sure which of these two things you believe but I think that it must be one of them. Would you please explain your position to me?

Ronnie, how did this not answer your question:

The "true" Bible is, of course, what the original writers wrote. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit has kept for us His inerrant, infallible word that He will use to teach us, correct us and bring us to salvation.

 

[handy]

I suppose that you could just give me a direct answer to my question(s), that would clear things up greatly. But I guess it's just you, being you, doing what you see fit to do instead.


Do you believe that the scripture that instructs us to answer every man is another one that ought not have been put in the Bible?

Realizing that you asked this of Reba instead of me, I'm going to chime in with my own thoughts on this:

We are told to give answer for the faith that is within us. I find Reba's answers to be sound. However, there came a point when even Jesus Himself refused to answer questions....when the questioner wasn't really interested in the answers, just was wanting to try to catch Jesus with a "gotcha"...no need to answer those kinds of questions.

In all honesty, Ronnie, I don't know whether you are truly interesting in resolving this issue, or just trying to string people on and on and on and on...in an attempt to make fools of those who believe in God's preservation of His holy and inerrant word, even if there is a question regarding a unicorn or a wild ox, or if Josiah was 8 or 18 when he became king.

That is just real honesty on my part. It's based by reading what others have posted to you and then your responses.

Responses like this
Are you telling me, that you don't believe that God could deliver His Word to us and keep it preseved in a pure form? And I mean pure like Himself, uncorruptable.


Or, are you saying, that God, did not see fit to intervine in the preservation of His Word after it was given to holy men?


I'm not sure which of these two things you believe but I think that it must be one of them. Would you please explain your position to me?

When I already said, "The "true" Bible is, of course, what the original writers wrote. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit has kept for us His inerrant, infallible word that He will use to teach us, correct us and bring us to salvation."

Now, you can get angry with me for beginning to think that you're stringing us along...but please don't. For those of us who've been on this forum, believe me, we've plenty of experience with those who do just string people along...never accepting anything that is said, just going on and on and on and on and on.....never allowing anything anyone says to sink in.

I don't know for sure if you are going to be doing that or not...this thread just seems to be heading in that direction.

Reba's answer here:
You have someone close to you maybe a wife.

When she talks to you you know what is in her heart. You grasp the depth of her words.

If some came to you and said " She said XYZ" You would know if that person was speaking the truth or not. Because you have a personal relationship with your wife.

Well i have a personal relationship with God. His Word is the whole of Scripture.

Is about the best answer on this entire thread. Clearly she is saying that her personal relationship with God clears up what of Scripture is God's word...I understand fully what she is saying...as will any other Christian...it is both a logical and a biblical answer.

And your response is: His Word is the whole of scripture, that sems kind of vague.

This is what the Holy Spirit Himself states regarding the Scriptures:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Our "natural man" that part of us that, even after coming to Christ wars with the new Spirit within us (see Romans 7) fights against our understanding of Scripture. If one is really struggling with understanding of Scripture, it is a clear sign of not being totally yielded to the Spirit.

And, believe me when I say that I'm not trying to "attack" you...this is a struggle that all of us go through. Asking such questions is in no way sin and having the struggle isn't sin either...

It's what you decide to do about it. Take some things on faith, since your brothers and sisters in the Lord affirm to you that you can and trust that God will reveal the truth to you in due time? Or....just throw your hands up and reject all because you aren't getting the answers you want in the form that you want them.

You don't owe me any answers here...I'm just encouraging you to examine your own confession...either you are a man of faith...or you're not. If you're a man of faith, it shouldn't be all that hard for you to accept that God has indeed preserved His holy, inerrant and inspired word to us, even if there is a unicorn mentioned.

If you're not a man of faith...the Bible is going to remain an incomprehensible mess, no matter how many times we answer your questions.

Again, not trying to "attack you"...just from a sister to a brother, this is a concern I have when reading through this thread.

 

[reba]

I suppose that you could just give me a direct answer to my question(s), that would clear things up greatly. But I guess it's just you, being you, doing what you see fit to do instead.


Do you believe that the scripture that instructs us to answer every man is another one that ought not have been put in the Bible?

Ronnie either you just refuse to accept my answer or your playing games I did my best to answer you directly sorry if you think differently..

I do believe my first response to you was the right one.


From post # 59

Your not confused your working to cause confusion. I have read enough of your posts .....

 

[ronniechoate34]

Ronnie, how did this not answer your question:

The "true" Bible is, of course, what the original writers wrote. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit has kept for us His inerrant, infallible word that He will use to teach us, correct us and bring us to salvation.

I thought you said that you believe that there are some minor errors in the Word of God, gnats is what you called them. Purity demands, well, purity demands purity. If you believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, has kept His inerrant Word for us, then how can you believe that their are errors in the Word that we have been delivered? I don't understand this because it seems very illogical to me, but I am sure that you will be able to clear it up for me just fine.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Ronnie either you just refuse to accept my answer or your playing games I did my best to answer you directly sorry if you think differently..

I do believe my first response to you was the right one.


From post # 59

Your not confused your working to cause confusion. I have read enough of your posts .....

No you haven't actually answered me, in fact here are a couple of questions that you have not answered;


How do you know that it's really the Lord speaking to you,and, what has He told you is wrong with how men have represented him through the pens of scripture?


Maybe if you answered me I would understand where you are coming from a little better, but you could just keep me in the dark. That's completely up to you.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Realizing that you asked this of Reba instead of me, I'm going to chime in with my own thoughts on this:

We are told to give answer for the faith that is within us. I find Reba's answers to be sound. However, there came a point when even Jesus Himself refused to answer questions....when the questioner wasn't really interested in the answers, just was wanting to try to catch Jesus with a "gotcha"...no need to answer those kinds of questions.

In all honesty, Ronnie, I don't know whether you are truly interesting in resolving this issue, or just trying to string people on and on and on and on...in an attempt to make fools of those who believe in God's preservation of His holy and inerrant word, even if there is a question regarding a unicorn or a wild ox, or if Josiah was 8 or 18 when he became king.

That is just real honesty on my part. It's based by reading what others have posted to you and then your responses.

Responses like this
Are you telling me, that you don't believe that God could deliver His Word to us and keep it preseved in a pure form? And I mean pure like Himself, uncorruptable.


Or, are you saying, that God, did not see fit to intervine in the preservation of His Word after it was given to holy men?


I'm not sure which of these two things you believe but I think that it must be one of them. Would you please explain your position to me?

When I already said, "The "true" Bible is, of course, what the original writers wrote. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit has kept for us His inerrant, infallible word that He will use to teach us, correct us and bring us to salvation."

Now, you can get angry with me for beginning to think that you're stringing us along...but please don't. For those of us who've been on this forum, believe me, we've plenty of experience with those who do just string people along...never accepting anything that is said, just going on and on and on and on and on.....never allowing anything anyone says to sink in.

I don't know for sure if you are going to be doing that or not...this thread just seems to be heading in that direction.

Reba's answer here:
You have someone close to you maybe a wife.

When she talks to you you know what is in her heart. You grasp the depth of her words.

If some came to you and said " She said XYZ" You would know if that person was speaking the truth or not. Because you have a personal relationship with your wife.

Well i have a personal relationship with God. His Word is the whole of Scripture.

Is about the best answer on this entire thread. Clearly she is saying that her personal relationship with God clears up what of Scripture is God's word...I understand fully what she is saying...as will any other Christian...it is both a logical and a biblical answer.

And your response is: His Word is the whole of scripture, that sems kind of vague.

This is what the Holy Spirit Himself states regarding the Scriptures:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Our "natural man" that part of us that, even after coming to Christ wars with the new Spirit within us (see Romans 7) fights against our understanding of Scripture. If one is really struggling with understanding of Scripture, it is a clear sign of not being totally yielded to the Spirit.

And, believe me when I say that I'm not trying to "attack" you...this is a struggle that all of us go through. Asking such questions is in no way sin and having the struggle isn't sin either...

It's what you decide to do about it. Take some things on faith, since your brothers and sisters in the Lord affirm to you that you can and trust that God will reveal the truth to you in due time? Or....just throw your hands up and reject all because you aren't getting the answers you want in the form that you want them.

You don't owe me any answers here...I'm just encouraging you to examine your own confession...either you are a man of faith...or you're not. If you're a man of faith, it shouldn't be all that hard for you to accept that God has indeed preserved His holy, inerrant and inspired word to us, even if there is a unicorn mentioned.

If you're not a man of faith...the Bible is going to remain an incomprehensible mess, no matter how many times we answer your questions.

Again, not trying to "attack you"...just from a sister to a brother, this is a concern I have when reading through this thread.

I'm not mad at anyone, and I am not trying to string anyone along, I am just trying to get some answers here to see if it will help make sense of this all.

 

[handy]

I thought you said that you believe that there are some minor errors in the Word of God, gnats is what you called them. Purity demands, well, purity demands purity. If you believe that God, through the Holy Spirit, has kept His inerrant Word for us, then how can you believe that their are errors in the Word that we have been delivered? I don't understand this because it seems very illogical to me, but I am sure that you will be able to clear it up for me just fine.

Perhaps I might...depends upon how much you want the question of whether or not we can trust the Bibles in our hands to be answered in the affirmative.

If there were errors of substance in the Bible, that were traceable to source documents, I'd say that God didn't preserve His word.

For instance, if the difference between the KJV's version of Hebrews 1:8 and the NWT's version of Hebrews 1:8 was due because if we look at the source documents, they are not clear and it could easily be translated either way, I would admit that confusion reigns supreme and God's inerrant word did not come down to us.

But, that isn't the case...the original texts do indeed show that of the Son, God says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." That the translators of the NWT came along and translated it as God saying the Son,: “God is your throne forever and ever" just proves that they "translated" (or more accurately paraphrased) God's Holy Word to fit their predefined doctrine. This is why the Church has rejected JW as a legitimate denomination...because they alter God's word to fit their doctrines, rather than base their doctrine on the clear teaching of the word.

Now, if it bothers you that God's word isn't "pure" as in it isn't without a few, unimportant "typos", that isn't a cause to say that we don't have God's holy and inerrant word.

For instance, would you agree that below is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little care, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great work remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead will not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Have I posted here a correct copy of Lincoln's address? Is there anything about this copy that truly changes Lincoln's message to all American's on that day?

As humans, we can take any idea to absurdity. And, when you honestly look at it, rejecting the Bible as God's holy and inerrant word because of a word that 400 years ago was translated as unicorn, or that somewhere along the line a 1 was either added or dropped from Josiah's age, is indeed absurd. As absurd as a starving man rejecting a life giving feast because of a few gnats.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Perhaps I might...depends upon how much you want the question of whether or not we can trust the Bibles in our hands to be answered in the affirmative.

If there were errors of substance in the Bible, that were traceable to source documents, I'd say that God didn't preserve His word.

For instance, if the difference between the KJV's version of Hebrews 1:8 and the NWT's version of Hebrews 1:8 was due because if we look at the source documents, they are not clear and it could easily be translated either way, I would admit that confusion reigns supreme and God's inerrant word did not come down to us.

But, that isn't the case...the original texts do indeed show that of the Son, God says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." That the translators of the NWT came along and translated it as God saying the Son,: “God is your throne forever and ever" just proves that they "translated" (or more accurately paraphrased) God's Holy Word to fit their predefined doctrine. This is why the Church has rejected JW as a legitimate denomination...because they alter God's word to fit their doctrines, rather than base their doctrine on the clear teaching of the word.

Now, if it bothers you that God's word isn't "pure" as in it isn't without a few, unimportant "typos", that isn't a cause to say that we don't have God's holy and inerrant word.

For instance, would you agree that below is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?

Have I posted here a correct copy of Lincoln's address? Is there anything about this copy that truly changes Lincoln's message to all American's on that day?

As humans, we can take any idea to absurdity. And, when you honestly look at it, rejecting the Bible as God's holy and inerrant word because of a word that 400 years ago was translated as unicorn, or that somewhere along the line a 1 was either added or dropped from Josiah's age, is indeed absurd. As absurd as a starving man rejecting a life giving feast because of a few gnats.

I don't understand, if something is inerrant that means that there are no erors in it, nada, none. I still can't understand how something can be thought to be inerrant, and yet at the same time be thought to contain errors, it seems double minded to me.


How much more plainly can I put this to help you understand where I am coming from here?

 

[Free]

I don't understand, if something is inerrant that means that there are no erors in it, nada, none. I still can't understand how something can be thought to be inerrant, and yet at the same time be thought to contain errors, it seems double minded to me.


How much more plainly can I put this to help you understand where I am coming from here?

Read through this:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

If the link fails, just Google that line.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Read through this:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

If the link fails, just Google that line.

I did not read through all of this, but I did skim through the section that was titled Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation.


The conclusion seems to be that as long as the core doctrine remains the same the subtle differences don't matter.


Haven't these subtle differences been dividing God's people for a long time?


I am sure that we can find at least one example of how these discrepancies have caused division.


Also, after looking up the exact meanings of the words infallible, and inerrant, I have came to the logical conclusion that they both simply mean without error.

 

[Free]

I did not read through all of this, but I did skim through the section that was titled Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation.


The conclusion seems to be that as long as the core doctrine remains the same the subtle differences don't matter.


Haven't these subtle differences been dividing God's people for a long time?


I am sure that we can find at least one example of how these discrepancies have caused division.


Also, after looking up the exact meanings of the words infallible, and inerrant, I have came to the logical conclusion that they both simply mean without error.

I don't think it is the subtle differences that are the cause of division, although they may be depending on the nature of the difference. There always has been doctrinal differences but they are largely based on the not-so-subtle differences between texts and on the interpretation of the Bible.

There is a difference between inerrancy and infallibility. True inerrancy, that is, being completely error free, really only applies to the autographs. However, since we do not have the autographs, biblical inerrancy more-or-less means that there is no intention of lying or deceit. Note that this does not rule out copyist errors and such.

Infallibility on the other hand means that what the Bible states regarding faith and the Christian life is completely true and sufficient for the life and practice of the Christian, leading to salvation.

I have copied the more relevant points:

Article X.

<small>WE AFFIRM</small> 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.
Article XI.

<small>WE AFFIRM</small> that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
Article XII.

<small>WE AFFIRM</small> that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.


<small>WE DENY</small> that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII.

<small>WE AFFIRM</small> the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.


<small>WE DENY</small> 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.

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.
lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.
Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
......
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
.......
Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.




You will notice that although it is affirmed that Scripture is infallible and inerrant (two different but related concepts), the copies we have "are not entirely error-free." This is what we have to work with and that is just the way it is. All the more reason to seriously study the Word.

 

[handy]

I understand where you're coming from...you don't need to try to make it any clearer for me.

Did you catch this though:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little care, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great work remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead will not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Is there truly any errors here? Really? Is there anything in here that has essentially changed Lincoln's words for all Americans?

I don't know, Ronnie...Sometimes I think that God allows these "gnats" to simply winnow out those who are trying their darnedest to find a reason to disbelieve Him.

He has kept His infallible, inerrant message all these years, there is no part of salvation that you cannot come to understand by reading the Scriptures...but some would rather go out and die and be damned forever because of unicorns or the digit 1.

Myself....I'm not going to call God "double minded" when through His word (Gospel of John) He saved me and He promises me that His Scriptures still contain all I need for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

It seems like some want to be able to tell the Christian, "Ohhhh, ohhhhh....Luke said that the men with Paul stood, but Paul said that they fell down...the Bible is wholly unreliable!!!!!

Then I guess I'm supposed to be horrified and have my faith totally undermined and walk away from it all, over something that has no relevant importance in anyway.

So somewhere it's recorded that Josiah was 18 when he became king and elsewhere it says 8.....big deal.

HORRORS!!!!!!!!! There's a unicorn where a wild ox should be!!!!! Who cares?

I've read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, I've studied the Bible for 30+ years...I've found what a myriad of other Christians have found...there are no errors of any kind of substance. I am not going to play the game of "There's a unicorn...reject the entire thing." No sir, I am not.

There is a difference between inerrancy and infallibility. True inerrancy, that is, being completely error free, really only applies to the autographs. However, since we do not have the autographs, biblical inerrancy more-or-less means that there is no intention of lying or deceit. Note that this does not rule out copyist errors and such.

Infallibility on the other hand means that what the Bible states regarding faith and the Christian life is completely true and sufficient for the life and practice of the Christian, leading to salvation.

This is a very true and reliable statement. :nod

 

[Vince]

In the KJV, Jesus asks "Whom" do men say that, I, the Son of Man, am?"

It should be "Who," not "Whom."

There is an error in the KJV. Case closed.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

@ handy


I see why other members speak of your wisdom. I will never bring up "unicorns" again.

 

[ronniechoate34]

In the KJV, Jesus asks "Whom" do men say that, I, the Son of Man, am?"

It should be "Who," not "Whom."

There is an error in the KJV. Case closed.

Well then, if you can find an error then you should believe that God wasn't involved in it, God really is inerrant. Unless youi believe that He is, then I guess there is room for error.

 

[ronniechoate34]

I don't think it is the subtle differences that are the cause of division, although they may be depending on the nature of the difference..

There is division in the church today, and has been for many years, because of the subtle differences in the differing Bible versions. I can prove that to you very easily. In fact this thread is proof of that.

There always has been doctrinal differences but they are largely based on the not-so-subtle differences between texts and on the interpretation of the Bible..

You are right, there have always been doctrinal differences, but just because, according they are largely based on not so subtle differences does not mean that the subtle ones haven't been dividing for a long time. In fact there's much evidence to the contrary.

There is a difference between inerrancy and infallibility. True inerrancy, that is, being completely error free, really only applies to the autographs. However, since we do not have the autographs, biblical inerrancy more-or-less means that there is no intention of lying or deceit. Note that this does not rule out copyist errors and such..

I looked up the definition of infallible, it's firt listing is without error. I looked up the definition of inerrant and its only definition is without error. Without error means that there are NO errors present.


Is it your belief that God purely inspired the originals and then left it to man to keep His Word pure because He did not see fit to intervine because absolute purity of His Word was not important to Him? Or do you believe that God inspired the originals and was not able to keep them 100 percent intact and pure.


You have to believe one of those two things in order to believe as you do. Please tell me which it is that you believe, I don't think there's any middle ground there.

Infallibility on the other hand means that what the Bible states regarding faith and the Christian life is completely true and sufficient for the life and practice of the Christian, leading to salvation.

I have copied the more relevant points:

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.
Article XI.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.


WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
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.

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.
lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.
Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
......
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
.......
Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free..

I did read some of that earlier and I think I got the right idea concerning what it means. And God did some where promise to keep His Word's, do you reckon He meant all of them or do you think that He was just spouting off? Maybe you don't even believe that He actually said that.

You will notice that although it is affirmed that Scripture is infallible and inerrant (two different but related concepts), the copies we have "are not entirely error-free." This is what we have to work with and that is just the way it is. All the more reason to seriously study the Word. .

Inerrant, infallible, but not free of errors, I've got that.

 

[ronniechoate34]

I understand where you're coming from...you don't need to try to make it any clearer for me.

Did you catch this though:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little care, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great work remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead will not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.



Is there truly any errors here? Really? Is there anything in here that has essentially changed Lincoln's words for all Americans?

This isn't about Lincoln or his speech is it? This is about the pure Word of God. There really isn't any comparison, according to the Bible God promised to keep His Word's pure. The issue here is, did He do that or did He not. Lincoln never promised to keep any of his word's for us, Lincoln isn't our judge either.

I don't know, Ronnie...Sometimes I think that God allows these "gnats" to simply winnow out those who are trying their darnedest to find a reason to disbelieve Him.

So you think these "gnats" are there to cause division and confuson. That's hardly the way I have been taught that God is, that sounds like the adversary to me. That's weird that you think that God is trying His people because the Bible says that no man is tempted by God. Do you believe that scripture should even be in our Bible?

He has kept His infallible, inerrant message all these years, there is no part of salvation that you cannot come to understand by reading the Scriptures...but some would rather go out and die and be damned forever because of unicorns or the digit 1.

Infalible, inerrant, with only a few errors. It sounds like insanity to me. God has kept it pure but there are some impurities to be expected. What do you think is the matter with God, do you reckon Him too weak to make 100 percent certain that it is as perfect as He is. Or do you reckon He just did not see fit to help us out? Do you believe that God is perfect?

Myself....I'm not going to call God "double minded" when through His word (Gospel of John) He saved me and He promises me that His Scriptures still contain all I need for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

Actually, God isn't double minded, it's men who are double minded. I never said that about God.

It seems like some want to be able to tell the Christian, "Ohhhh, ohhhhh....Luke said that the men with Paul stood, but Paul said that they fell down...the Bible is wholly unreliable!!!!!

I don't quite understand this.

Then I guess I'm supposed to be horrified and have my faith totally undermined and walk away from it all, over something that has no relevant importance in anyway.




So somewhere it's recorded that Josiah was 18 when he became king and elsewhere it says 8.....big deal.

HORRORS!!!!!!!!! There's a unicorn where a wild ox should be!!!!! Who cares?

I am not asking you to walk away from anything, that's up to you.

I've read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, I've studied the Bible for 30+ years...I've found what a myriad of other Christians have found...there are no errors of any kind of substance. I am not going to play the game of "There's a unicorn...reject the entire thing." No sir, I am not.

There are no errors of any kind of substance you say. Well then, why are their so many people who believe that there are.Why all of the division? It seems pretty subsyantial to me. The biggest error comes from not having faith in God to be perfect.

There is a difference between inerrancy and infallibility. True inerrancy, that is, being completely error free,

Inerrant, look up the definition, it means one thing, free from errors. And infallibility, it means the same thing. Look into it, you will find the truth.

really only applies to the autographs.

The ones that you believe God gave to us and then left it up to us fallible men to keep.

However, since we do not have the autographs, biblical inerrancy more-or-less means that there is no intention of lying or deceit. Note that this does not rule out copyist errors and such.

Funny, that's not the definition of inerrant.

Infallibility on the other hand means that what the Bible states regarding faith and the Christian life is completely true and sufficient for the life and practice of the Christian, leading to salvation.
This is a very true and reliable statement.

If all of these bible's are so infallible, then why are they causing so many people confusion?

 

[Free]

Inerrant, look up the definition, it means one thing, free from errors. And infallibility, it means the same thing. Look into it, you will find the truth.





The ones that you believe God gave to us and then left it up to us fallible men to keep.





Funny, that's not the definition of inerrant.







If all of these bible's are so infallible, then why are they causing so many people confusion?

All right suit yourself. I see where this is going. If you don't want to use the accepted definitions of words relating directly to your questions, then all discussion is pointless.

 

[ronniechoate34]

All right suit yourself. I see where this is going. If you don't want to use the accepted definitions of words relating directly to your questions, then all discussion is pointless.

Who set forth these definitions, and why should I accept them when they differ from the known definitions?


I could take a word and finaggle its definition to suit my beliefs and expect everyone to join me. But I would have to be slick about it, and I would have to make sure that it was subtle and pleasing to everyone first, otherwise I doubt if it would work. I could just bank on every one accepting my definition with out question, that is possible.



in·fal·li·ble
adj \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\

Definition of INFALLIBLE



1

: incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>


2

: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>


3

: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals


Infallible - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


If you believe that the scriptures are infallible, and yet you believe that they contain errors that have divided people doctrinally, how does that equal infallible by definition? Maybe there is some other way to define the word infallible that I am unaware of.



in·er·rant
adj \-ənt\


: free from error


If something is free from errors then we should not be able to find any errors. Isn't that logical?

 

[handy]

@ handy


I see why other members speak of your wisdom. I will never bring up "unicorns" again.

When I was a baby Christian I wholeheartedly believed that unicorns once did exist and were simply now extinct because of their mention in the Bible. I felt the same way about dragons....and to this day, my mind is opened to the possibility.

BTW...that is the cutest baby!!!