Does it REALLy matter if the Theologians Deny Inerrancy of the Bible?

[Bro. James]

God needs no errata

Right Reverend Doctors have led many into apostasy. The Prince of the Power of the Air, the god of this world, has been working on deception ever since he convinced Eve she would not surely die by eating of the forbidden tree, but become wise instead.

God said what He meant, and meant what He said. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant--we are still without excuse.

In our feeble attempts to study God, we have come up with some serious confusion. Higher textual criticism and neo-darwinism have led the way. We have let the unregenerated tell us what we are and how we got here.
We also have the unregenerated in high places in churches--cranking out easy believism and repeat after me salvation.

Inerrancy, infallibility, and many other terms seem to get lost in a lot of theological, academic, rhetoric. It is really simple: God does not make junk. He is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY. His Word is without error. The Holy Spirit bears witness to The Word, even in Swahili--all of this in spite of human error and depravity.

The Textus Receptus as translated by the Anglicans (17th century)at the behest of an English King called James, aka the KJV, with all revisions and editions is still the best English translation. The translators worked with the best copies of the original autographs penned by the apostles as God breathed it to them. Does this make the KJV-- KJVO? Do not think so. This would have been a good opportunity to translate the word Baptizo. To do so would contradict the practice of sprinkling. The word was transliterated. Nonetheless, There are thousands of copies which agree, jot and tittle. The efforts of an overzealous scribe can be spotted quickly. There is no doubt what God said. Our problem is: we do not like what He says.

Even so, Come Lord Jesus.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[jaigner]

It personally makes me want to puke that N.T. Wright is even in this conversation. He's one of the most faithful expositors and theologians of our day.

 

[JesusFan]

Perhaps, given your extensive reading of both Wright and Barth you could help those of us not so familiar with them what might be these "dubious" points in their theology.

For instance, maybe a starting point is showing how either handled the issue of historiography in the theological prolegomena, and what that differs from the biblical position(s) on historiography.

Since, in Wright's work particularly, historiography occupies a significant portion of his (renowned) trilogy it would be vital to his initial theological framework.

Does Wright agree with the historical view on pauline justification of the saint before God by God declaring the sinner is now a saint by virtue of the atoning act of Christ upon the Cross! individual election, and that the person is saved by faith alone/grace alone...
would he see it based upon biblical madate, and now run the interpretation through lense of Judaism of the time?

 

[preachinjesus]

Does Wright agree with the historical view on pauline justification of the saint before God by God declaring the sinner is now a saint by virtue of the atoning act of Christ upon the Cross! individual election, and that the person is saved by faith alone/grace alone...
would he see it based upon biblical madate, and now run the interpretation through lense of Judaism of the time?

1. You haven't answered my question which is completely outside this inquiry.

2. Do you even know what you're asking? I mean the first question has a variety of interpretations historically. Yes, Wright is being authentic historically to a view of justification.

3. Please answer my questions and stay on target.:thumbs:

 

[preachinjesus]

It personally makes me want to puke that N.T. Wright is even in this conversation. He's one of the most faithful expositors and theologians of our day.

:thumbsup: Yep, and even how he is pulled in here makes no sense.

 

[jaigner]

:thumbsup: Yep, and even how he is pulled in here makes no sense.

I know. What a crock.

 

[Rippon]

the KJV, The translators worked with the best copies of the original autographs...

The KJV revisers did not have access to all the manuscripts that have come to light since their time. If they had had access to what we have today,they would have used them for the KJV.

I know that the KJV team, had they witnessed all this modern KJV nonsense would be aghast.

 

[Bro. James]

The Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints

This is still about the two streams of scripture: East and West. One is corrupted, the other not. This is about the scripture not evolved from the Holy See. This is about who has the keys of the kingdom and who never had them. This is about the gates of hell trying to destroy the Bride of Christ.

Beware of new revelations: Joseph Smith and company have deceived many. Some are trying for the White House.

Brother, it is the last days.

Are we ready?

Peace,

Bro. James

P.S. What are you doing in China?

 

[Rippon]

This is still about the two streams of scripture: East and West. One is corrupted, the other not. This is about the scripture not evolved from the Holy See. This is about who has the keys of the kingdom and who never had them. This is about the gates of hell trying to destroy the Bride of Christ.

That sounds like a lot of mystical mumbo jumble.

P.S. What are you doing in China?

I'm a-learnin' them there Chinese folks some Engerish.:thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

"Inerrant" is a brittle, broken word. It means so many things to so many people that it's not useful for us anymore.

Personally, I believe the Bible is without error in its original autographs and that it is true in all it affirms. If that equals inerrant, then that's what I believe.

I prefer to use to word "infallible," as that's what we're really getting at: that the Bible is completely trustworthy.

So, I would listen to a theologian's explanation instead of making them comply with the one label.

Precisely... :thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

This is still about the two streams of scripture: East and West. One is corrupted, the other not. This is about the scripture not evolved from the Holy See. This is about who has the keys of the kingdom and who never had them. This is about the gates of hell trying to destroy the Bride of Christ.

Beware of new revelations: Joseph Smith and company have deceived many. Some are trying for the White House.

Brother, it is the last days.

Are we ready?

Peace,

Bro. James

P.S. What are you doing in China?

You are attempting to describe inerrancy according to your own preference (or those of people you trust and follow). That is exactly what we are discussing in this thread, for if one can find ONE ERROR in either the TR or the 1611 KJV or one of the updates (why an update if it is inerrant?) then your entire house ends up being built on sand. And, because we know that there have been discoveries of errors, even by the KJV translators themselves, your house IS built on sand, and has crumbled.

This is not to remove the concept of inerrancy -- God forbid -- He caused to be written EXACTLY what He wanted written, and He caused to be handed down to us EXACTLY what He wanted handed down (sort of sounds like a sovereign God, doesn't it?) so that when we "take up and read" (as was God's word to Augustine from the lips of a child) we read "The Word of God" in whatever form we hold, which is sufficient, efficient, and accomplishes all that God intended.

 

[JesusFan]

I know. What a crock.

just curious...

Does NT Wright uphold the penal substitutionary atonement work of Christ upon the Cross?

 

[JesusFan]

It personally makes me want to puke that N.T. Wright is even in this conversation. He's one of the most faithful expositors and theologians of our day.

even though he has sympathies with Robb Bell theology, and always seems to 'dodge" wether he beieves in the Bible as being fully inerrant?

 

[Baptist Believer]

even though he ... always seems to 'dodge" wether he beieves in the Bible as being fully inerrant?

Theologians try to avoid being misunderstood, and they know some words are essentially shibboleths instead of meaningful statements that bring clarification. That's one of the reasons I tend to choose my words very carefully when dealing with these controversial topics.

When you say "The Bible" in your question above, are you referring to the original manuscripts, which we don't knowingly have and can't examine? If so, then you are actually asking for a statement of faith regarding something that the Bible doesn't explicitly teach. Now many people take what is said about the scriptures being given by the inspiration of God (God-breathed) as the foundation for inerrancy, but that is an extrapolation based on a Western (Greek philosophy-influenced) view of divinity and revelation.

If when you say, "The Bible," you mean the texts and translations we have today, then Wright would be entirely justified is saying the Bible is not inerrant.

Here's a few parallel passages from the Old Testament showing the problems with numbers (I have used the King James Version here for the benefit of our KJVO folks since some of them make the claim that the King James translation is inerrant, although a few of the more modern translations actually "fix" some of these difficulties):

--

How many horsemen did David take with him from Hadadezer?
700 horsemen. 2Sa 8:4
“And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.”

7,000 horsemen. 1Ch 18:4
“And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.”

How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
4,000 stalls. 2Ch 9:25
“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.”

40,000 stalls. 1Ki 4:26
“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Twenty two years old. 2Ki 8:26
“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.”

Forty two years old. 2Ch 22:2
“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.”

--

Now these problems shouldn't worry us, but they should remind us that the value of the scripture is not that it is "inerrant", but that it is inspired by God.

 

[JesusFan]

Theologians try to avoid being misunderstood, and they know some words are essentially shibboleths instead of meaningful statements that bring clarification. That's one of the reasons I tend to choose my words very carefully when dealing with these controversial topics.

When you say "The Bible" in your question above, are you referring to the original manuscripts, which we don't knowingly have and can't examine? If so, then you are actually asking for a statement of faith regarding something that the Bible doesn't explicitly teach. Now many people take what is said about the scriptures being given by the inspiration of God (God-breathed) as the foundation for inerrancy, but that is an extrapolation based on a Western (Greek philosophy-influenced) view of divinity and revelation.

If when you say, "The Bible," you mean the texts and translations we have today, then Wright would be entirely justified is saying the Bible is not inerrant.

Here's a few parallel passages from the Old Testament showing the problems with numbers (I have used the King James Version here for the benefit of our KJVO folks since some of them make the claim that the King James translation is inerrant, although a few of the more modern translations actually "fix" some of these difficulties):

--

How many horsemen did David take with him from Hadadezer?
700 horsemen. 2Sa 8:4
“And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.”

7,000 horsemen. 1Ch 18:4
“And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.”

How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses?
4,000 stalls. 2Ch 9:25
“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.”

40,000 stalls. 1Ki 4:26
“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Twenty two years old. 2Ki 8:26
“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.”

Forty two years old. 2Ch 22:2
“Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.”

--

Now these problems shouldn't worry us, but they should remind us that the value of the scripture is not that it is "inerrant", but that it is inspired by God.

We should define it the way the the authors of the sacred trexts did, as the Lord jesus Himself did!

EVERY word in the origals were inspired by the HS, and once complteted in their final forms, were without errors mistakes etc in either historical or theological facts!

 

[Baptist Believer]

We should define it the way the the authors of the sacred trexts did, as the Lord jesus Himself did!

I agree.

So how did the original authors (where we have one identified) and Jesus define inerrancy?

In fact, where is the concept of inerrancy taught in scripture (the one that claims no errors in the original manuscripts but acknowledges errors creeping into the texts over the years)?

And please don't give me texts about divine preservation of the scripture because it clearly doesn't mean inerrancy since the copies we have are not inerrant. I believe in divine preservation of the scriptures, but it obviously means something other than the modern theories of inerrancy.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree.

So how did the original authors (where we have one identified) and Jesus define inerrancy?

In fact, where is the concept of inerrancy taught in scripture (the one that claims no errors in the original manuscripts but acknowledges errors creeping into the texts over the years)?

And please don't give me texts about divine preservation of the scripture because it clearly doesn't mean inerrancy since the copies we have are not inerrant. I believe in divine preservation of the scriptures, but it obviously means something other than the modern theories of inerrancy.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit could NOT have been able to make sure exactly what God intended to have recorded through human authors would be put down?

that He could make sure the final product, sacred texts, were completely truthfully in all thing written, no mistakes/errors within them?

that has been pretty much the "baptist' view on the original manuscripts!

 

[mandym]

And please don't give me texts about divine preservation of the scripture because it clearly doesn't mean inerrancy since the copies we have are not inerrant.

So show me which doctrine do the current copies get wrong?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit could NOT have been able to make sure exactly what God intended to have recorded through human authors would be put down?

You're avoiding the question.

that He could make sure the final product, sacred texts, were completely truthfully in all thing written, no mistakes/errors within them?

God could do whatever He wanted to do regarding the scripture (not give it at all, dictate it, give it on golden tablets, give it only to the King James translators, give it full of imperfections, etc.), the question is, what did God do?

You claimed that we should accept the teaching of Jesus and the human authors... I agree. Now what did they teach us?

that has been pretty much the "baptist' view on the original manuscripts!

Making blanket pronouncements and demonstrating them are two very different things. If you can't defend your opinions, maybe you shouldn't condemn folks like N.T. Wright or people on this board who take these issues very seriously.

 

[Baptist Believer]

So show me which doctrine do the current copies get wrong?

I have stated multiple times that I don't believe any doctrines have been affected by the errors that have crept into our copies of scripture.

So please don't try to misrepresent my position.