Biblical Inerrancy vs. Biblical Infallibility

[SavedByGrace]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

If the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are in any way limited in Inerrancy then it cannot be used to "correct" or "instruct" or "reprove" or "teaching", as it will have errors itself. Further if the Bible in the Original Autographs are not completely Inerrant, then God is guilty of being a false witness as His Word is fallible and cannot be completely trusted. This is impossible.

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a difference between Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.

The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus.

When assessing ancient documents by normal historical standards, their reliability isn't determined by exactness in every possible detail:

Would say Inerrancy means no mistakes or errors at all in the text, same way KJVO sees their translation, while Infallibility means that while known errors and mistakes, the doctrines and message are fully trustworthy and authoritative!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is a difference between Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.

The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus.

When assessing ancient documents by normal historical standards, their reliability isn't determined by exactness in every possible detail:

No translation can claim Inerrancy, but valid ones can claim to be infallible!

 

[37818]

Biblical errancy without exception involves one or more of three issues. There are no perfect human interpertes. There are no perfect translations. And a problem with a translation can be do to a known manuscript variant that is not a word of God.

 

[rlvaughn]

While it's certainly possible that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, it's not required for the Gospels to be reliable accounts.

It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, order.

I am not aware that inerrantists insist that the gospel writers place all the events of Jesus' life in chronological order. Who makes that claim?

 

[Mikey]

Please let me say this again, I'm not sharing anything that isn't already taught in evangelical seminaries.

There is a historical difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, including William Lane Craig, would be considered evangelical, but not fundamentalist.

Knowledge of church history and Biblical scholarship isn't something to be afraid of.

While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.

These are things you would learn in your first quarter of evangelical seminary. This is 101 level information.

Just because it's taught in seminaries doesn't make it right. William lane Craig has many theological issues, he is a philosopher not a theologian.

I don't disagree because im afraid, what condescending nonsense.

 

[Van]

Making claims without verifiable evidence is the stock and trade of false teachers. For example, I could say God put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. And I might seem to support that speculation with "God put everything" in the heavens.
Does the bible say that since the original autographs, absolutely no corruptions have occurred as the message was copied over and over? You can make a logical case the original autographs were without corruption, but since they do not exist, or their location is unknown, it is just a sound belief based on sound reasoning.

To claim our existing copies are without error, in light of all the variant copies of the same text, lacks merit.

 

[Marooncat79]

Exactly where do the Gospels contradict each other?

2-3 examples please

 

[SavedByGrace]

 

[Yeshua1]

Just because it's taught in seminaries doesn't make it right. William lane Craig has many theological issues, he is a philosopher not a theologian.

I don't disagree because im afraid, what condescending nonsense.

he does have serious issues with Reformed theology, William lane Craig!

 

[George Antonios]

There is a difference between Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.

The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus.

When assessing ancient documents by normal historical standards, their reliability isn't determined by exactness in every possible detail:

Cop-out.

Pro_30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Mat_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.

Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Yeshua1]

Cop-out.

Pro_30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Mat_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.

Mat_5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

yes, in the Originals!

 

[Humble Disciple]

Do the Resurrection Narratives Hinge Upon Biblical Inerrancy?
On March 22, 2001 Dr William Lane Craig debated Dr Massimo Pigliucci on the topic, "Does the Christian God Exist?" at University of Georgia in the U.G.A. Chapel. The conclusion of the debate provided a lengthy Q&A session. Questions were asked of each debater allowing the other time to respond.

 

[Iconoclast]

more FALSE teachings!

Correct.....but on the bright side ,you knew to post 5 Calvinist videos when you wanted to find truth

 

[Mikey]

he does have serious issues with Reformed theology, William lane Craig!

I was thinking more of his Neo-Apollonarianism and Molinism.