Inerrancy

This poll is to see how people feel about the inerrancy issue, and how they see its impact upon theology.

Thanks for participating!

Grace and Peace, Danny

All Christians believe in inerrancy because we worship the perfect God.

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
All Christians believe in inerrancy because we worship the perfect God.

Click to expand...

Some Christians believe in inerrancy.
All Christians worship the perfect God.

One question left out, inerrant in the originals or a translation or the manuscripts?

Being raised multi-lingual I learned that it is impossible to translate without staining.

For example, if I were translating from a conversation with a man who told me something about his wife in another language, I could tell you either:

1. He said his wife was a little cat. or
2. He said his wife was a kitten.

In today's society in America, those have opposite meanings, yet both would be accurate translations.

You not only have to know the content (was this is about their time together in the kitchen or in their bedroom?), but also have to know the slang of the culture, the idioms and how people used the language back in their day, and in their setting.

One language that I formally studied for four years I had trouble using when I visited the country because they didn't talk the way that my teachers had! My teachers were not preparing me to converse in the language, but to have head-knowledge of the language. (That was an okay attitude for my Latin teacher, by the way, since there is no one to converse with in Latin!)

We tend to forget that the purpose of language is communication, and that the purpose of the Bible is to enhance our relationship with God.

Just as we send email to have 'spiritual intercourse' so God sent us His Bible. Study the Bible not to know it better, but to know the Author better.

"Jesus in not your Savior if He is not also your Lord."

I believe that the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God and are therefore without error in the original writings.
I further believe that this inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of the Bible: historical, poetical, doctrinal and prophetical. I therefore, believe in the absolute authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice. John 10:35; II Timothy 3:16, 17; II Peter 1:21.

God revealed to men,(revelation), who were moved in their writing by the Holy Spirit,(inspiration), who speaks to our hearts to this very day,(illumination).

Dr. Harold Wilmington uses an example, of Albert Einstine wanting to publish his theory of relativity. He calls a reporter on the phone, and explains his theory to the reporter,(revelation). The reporter goes to Dr. Einstine, interviews him in regards to his theory and takes notes,(inspiration). The reporter then publishes his notes for all to read,(illumination).


A servant of Christ,
Drew

Originally posted by Caretaker:
I believe that the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God and are therefore without error in the original writings.
I further believe that this inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of the Bible: historical, poetical, doctrinal and prophetical. I therefore, believe in the absolute authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice. John 10:35; II Timothy 3:16, 17; II Peter 1:21.

God revealed to men,(revelation), who were moved in their writing by the Holy Spirit,(inspiration), who speaks to our hearts to this very day,(illumination).

Dr. Harold Wilmington uses an example, of Albert Einstine wanting to publish his theory of relativity. He calls a reporter on the phone, and explains his theory to the reporter,(revelation). The reporter goes to Dr. Einstine, interviews him in regards to his theory and takes notes,(inspiration). The reporter then publishes his notes for all to read,(illumination).


A servant of Christ,
Drew

Click to expand...

Good analogy and I would add that God was the proofreader resulting in perfect copy (The Bible not Einstein)

Amen Artimaeus!!

God spent 40 days and nights with Moses using His Heavenly "spell-check"..


May God so bless His precious children.

A servant of Christ,
Drew

If the Bible is inerrant only in the autographs, then what you use is errant.

Too bad God didn't care to "proofread" the text that the Church must now use as its basis of faith and practice.

The truth of God's Word has withstood the test of time and the depravity of man. I can open the Book of Isaiah today, and I can rest assured that the intact scroll of Isaiah from Qumron substantiates the coming righteous reign of the root of Jessie. I can rest assured that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. God's Word stands true for those who come to the Lamb of God and the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings.

A servant of Christ,
Drew

The problem here is that there is an assumed definition of inerrancy. One can deny the particular definition implied here and still be an inerrantist.

Whatever God utters is inerrant. The Bible is God's utterance. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

Rufus

What seems to be evident is that persons who believe in the reliability of scripture do so as a theological position they take to scripture, rather than something that is based upon the historical, geographical, scientific, etc. claims of the text itself. I think that is valid, as long as one holds infallability (as it was defined in the poll); however, to hold inerrancy (as it was defined in the poll) puts one within the realm of scientific, historical, etc. verification, which can pose serious questions to scripture.

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
What seems to be evident is that persons who believe in the reliability of scripture do so as a theological position they take to scripture, rather than something that is based upon the historical, geographical, scientific, etc. claims of the text itself. I think that is valid, as long as one holds infallability (as it was defined in the poll); however, to hold inerrancy (as it was defined in the poll) puts one within the realm of scientific, historical, etc. verification, which can pose serious questions to scripture.

Click to expand...

The question of inerrancy can only become a problem in the scientific, historical, geographical, etc. realm when basing the proof on the secular. Any creation based verification will belittle the secular proofs, because these proofs are based on the lie of evolution. In order for the Bible to be questioned by the secular, you would have to count secular science as infallible.

A combination of theology, plus the proof of creation does not need a proof of God's existance, nor does the Bible need to be proven true, because God spoke it. Secular proofs must prove themselves to be true, yet are based on theories that are believed as fact. The constant barrage of so called "proofs" from the secular world do not disprove inerrancy, but rather help to support inerrancy from the past and the future of Biblical proofs. So, to base a belief on secular, from biblical cannot be done.

Olive,

Even if we leave out the secular sciences (though I think you have a very distorted view of their importance), the disjunction of historical and geographical texts in scripture can question the dogma of inerrancy. When speaking of this I am not speaking of creation accounts, but things such as parallel passages in the gospels or the Kings and Chronicles accounts in OT. Creation is only a very small problem compared the these posed to inerrancy. I would even say that the original intent of the writers of the gospels is horribly skewed when the history of the texts is forced into the forefront.

Grace and Peace, Danny

The only "theory" that can question the fact of inerrancy is "belief that God cannot write a inerrant book in man's language."

I for one believe that the affirmations in God's Word are inerrant because revealed by God who cannot lie.

Anyone who desires may analyze the copies of the copies, and the translations and revisions of the Word, but will be hard put to find errors in God's affirmations. Unless, of couse, someone is wiser than God and knows a language He is not familar with.

Rufus IMHO

Inerrancy is not a sure sign of God's inspiration. I have a copy of Robert's Rules of Order and as far as I can humanly tell, it is inerrant. I do not consider it God's word nor divinely inspired!

Moreover, it is one thing to assert what God CAN do and another thing to assert what God DID do. I believe God COULD cause my pastor to be error free in all his sermons. I also don't think He has done that. Nevertheless, I persist in believing God has something to do with the content of my pastor's sermons!

Isn't that possible for me to think that way?

If so, it is also possible to think that way about the Bible, isn't it?

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
If so, it is also possible to think that way about the Bible, isn't it?

Click to expand...

It is certainly possible; it just isn't correct. Your pastor does his best to convey what God actually said. The men God used to pen Scripture didn't just do the best they could, they were flawless because God himself oversaw and carried them along.

The Levitical Code is flawed (otherwise Paul would have told us in Galatians to continue to abide by it).

Look, for instance, at Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Do you honestly believe that at any time in human history God desired that a woman who was raped in a town be executed for failing to cry out? Do you believe that God ever wanted a woman who was raped to be forced to marry her rapist?

The Levitical Code is, for its time, generally fair and progressive (although it still views women as inferior to men and considers women property). It is not, however perfect, flawless, or ideal. It's the best that God's faithful people had at the time - and the fact that we no longer follow it is proof of its imperfection.

We can learn from flawed documents. Flawed human vessles that we are, we can transmit truth through imperfect media. The Scriptures do not have to be composed by God to lead us to God, to salvation, or to a life of faith.

Joshua

[ February 06, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

So then, it is logically possible that God created an inerrant scripture, and it is logically possible that He could have inspired men to write well without making them inerrant as they penned scripture. So given these two options, by what basis do we choose between them? Rev. Joshua suggests we examine the scriptures and accept what appears to be minor blemishes from perfection as, in fact, minor blemishes from perfection. Why not do that?