Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable?

[Baptist Believer]

What would be the point in believing in any Bible if you think it has errors in it?

The point would be that it was given by God through human agency to the church for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Any minor "errors" of history or fact would not change the essential character, purpose and usefulness of the text.

 

[Revmitchell]

There are no errors on history or fact.

 

[Jerome]

Why get hung up on red flag terms like inerrant and infallible? Why not talk about Scripture as truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi yesua;
What would be the point in believing in any Bible if you think it has errors in it?
MB

I fully believe in their Inerrancy and infallability, but there are some in the Evangelical church who seek to go a more limityed view, as they deny a literal Genesis , and also seem to see Gospels mixed with myth and symbolism, not real historical events!

 

[Revmitchell]

Why get hung up on red flag terms like inerrant and infallible? Why not talk about Scripture as truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

Because they fail in comparison to the actual thing. You wouldn't call God "a good fella" would you? His word is just as majestic and true.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why get hung up on red flag terms like inerrant and infallible? Why not talk about Scripture as truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

Because those words still can be used to mean a limited Bible!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Because those words still can be used to mean a limited Bible!

What do you mean by "limited Bible"?

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you mean by "limited Bible"?

refers to some who would hold that when speaking on theology, bible correct, can have errors in history and other accounts, tend to see Genesis as more a Myth, deny literal Adam/Eve, and tends to see no problem with errors and lies placed right within the Gospels, as the author was using those "to prove his main points"

 

[Jerome]

Why get hung up on red flag terms like inerrant and infallible? Why not talk about Scripture as truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

Disagree x 1
Iconoclast

Because those words still can be used to mean a limited Bible!

What do you mean by "limited Bible"?

refers to some who would hold that when speaking on theology, bible correct, can have errors in history and other accounts, tend to see Genesis as more a Myth, deny literal Adam/Eve, and tends to see no problem with errors and lies placed right within the Gospels, as the author was using those "to prove his main points"

Wow. Do the naysayers know that Dr. Dockery is a bigwig in the SBC? (those were his words about alternatives to inerrant and infallible)

David Dockery is the doyen of Christian higher education

Baptist Press 8-17-1990 "Scholars Discuss Ways to Move Beyond the Impasse":

"Dockery said Southern Baptists will have to decide if 'we can hold together tensions on various views about the Bible as well as various views of interpreting the Bible.' Southern Baptists must understand the Bible is truthful, authoritative and is both a divine and human book, said Dockery. 'A lot of us get quite hung up on terms like inerrant and infallible,' he said. 'I think it is very possible to move the discussion forward and still talk about the nature of Scripture without using those particular red flag terms.' Within the Southern Baptist Convention, the terms communicate more about political parties than the nature of Scripture, he said. 'I would prefer that we talk about the Scripture as truthful, reliable and authoritative and see it having to be the normative guide for the church, for our lives and for the Christian community'."

 

[Revmitchell]

Wow. Do the naysayers know that Dr. Dockery is a bigwig in the SBC? (

So what?

 

[Baptist Believer]

refers to some who would hold that when speaking on theology, bible correct, can have errors in history and other accounts, tend to see Genesis as more a Myth, deny literal Adam/Eve, and tends to see no problem with errors and lies placed right within the Gospels, as the author was using those "to prove his main points"

Thank you for your answer. That helps me understand your position.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wow. Do the naysayers know that Dr. Dockery is a bigwig in the SBC? (those were his words about alternatives to inerrant and infallible)

David Dockery is the doyen of Christian higher education

Baptist Press 8-17-1990 "Scholars Discuss Ways to Move Beyond the Impasse":

"Dockery said Southern Baptists will have to decide if 'we can hold together tensions on various views about the Bible as well as various views of interpreting the Bible.' Southern Baptists must understand the Bible is truthful, authoritative and is both a divine and human book, said Dockery. 'A lot of us get quite hung up on terms like inerrant and infallible,' he said. 'I think it is very possible to move the discussion forward and still talk about the nature of Scripture without using those particular red flag terms.' Within the Southern Baptist Convention, the terms communicate more about political parties than the nature of Scripture, he said. 'I would prefer that we talk about the Scripture as truthful, reliable and authoritative and see it having to be the normative guide for the church, for our lives and for the Christian community'."

Problem is those words have been used by the very teachers/pastors who have undercut the solid full inerrancy basis for the bible!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Problem is those words have been used by the very teachers/pastors who have undercut the solid full inerrancy basis for the bible!

There are some of us who believe that "inerrancy" - as it is typically defined, limited to the original autographs - is too low of a view of the scriptures.

 

[TCassidy]

There are some of us who believe that "inerrancy" - as it is typically defined, limited to the original autographs - is too low of a view of the scriptures.

If inerrancy is only applicable to the autographs, then I would agree.

Autographs = Inspiration
Copies = Preservation
Translations = Derivation

Each step preserves the character of the previous step.

The inspired, and thus inerrant, nature of the first is preserved in the second, and is transferred to the third.

Thus the promises, in translation, are inspired promises, the prophecy is inspired prophecy, and the history is inspired history.

 

[rlvaughn]

[Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable] In all that they affirm and state, or is it just in the sreas of theology, as there are errors regarding dsay history and in stories of the OT especially?

Yes, I regard the Scriptures as being infallible in all areas, not just theology. While I can agree with some who say that the Bible is a theology book and not particularly a history or science book, I nevertheless believe the history, science, etc. recorded in the Bible is always accurate and correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I regard the Scriptures as being infallible in all areas, not just theology. While I can agree with some who say that the Bible is a theology book and not particularly a history or science book, I nevertheless believe the history, science, etc. recorded in the Bible is always accurate and correct.

As do I!

Shame that some have decided though to water it down....

 

[Yeshua1]

There are some of us who believe that "inerrancy" - as it is typically defined, limited to the original autographs - is too low of a view of the scriptures.

Think that Infallability also would be acceptable, as that would still affirm that whatever the Bible teaches to us is always correct and true...

 

[MB]

The point would be that it was given by God through human agency to the church for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

Any minor "errors" of history or fact would not change the essential character, purpose and usefulness of the text.

I believe God word is the real thoughts of our creator given to us so that we might know Him. There are many different versions that say the same things though the same thoughts still come through. This is How God fulfills His promise to preserve His Word. This is not to say all versions same the same thing. It's just, that there are some versions that are clearly better than others.
MB

 

[MB]

I fully believe in their Inerrancy and infallability, but there are some in the Evangelical church who seek to go a more limityed view, as they deny a literal Genesis , and also seem to see Gospels mixed with myth and symbolism, not real historical events!

Even when Christ was hear on Earth there were those who automatically got it all twisted up. It's always been that way. It seems as if some don't understand the whole message, or maybe they do and don't like it so they twist it all around in there heads until they do like what they think it's saying.
I do know God's word still does exactly what it was intended to do. For this I'm very thankfull.
MB

 

[MB]

Why do you believe the bible has errors in it?

I don't believe the Bible has errors and therefore I do believe in it.