Inerrancy

[Revmitchell]

There are generally three differing views of inerrancy. There may be some variations along the way by some but which view do you hold to more closely and why scriptural foundation do you have for holding to your view.

Absolute Inerrancy - "holds that the Bible, which includes rather detailed treatment of matter both scientific and historical, is fully true. The impression is conveyed that the biblical writers intended to give a considerable number of exact scientific and historical data. Thus, apparent discrepancies can and must be explained."

Full Inerrancy - "also holds that the Bible is completely true. While the Bible does not primarily aim to give scientific and historical data, such scientific and historical assertions as it does make are fully true. There is no essential difference between this position and absolute inerrancy in terms of their view of the religious/theological/spiritual message. The understanding of the scientific and historical references is quite different., however. Full inerrancy regards those phenomenal; that is, they are reported the way they appear to the human eye. They are not necessarily exact; rather, they are popular descriptions, often involving general references or approximations."

Limited Inerrancy - "also regards the Bible as inerrant and infallible in its salvific doctrinal references. A distinction is drawn, however, between nonempirical, revealed matters on the one hand, and empirical , natural references on the other hand. the Bible's scientific and historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was written. the Bible writers were subject to the limitations of their time. Revelation and inspiration did not raise the writers above ordinary knowledge. God did not reveal science or history to them. Consequently, the Bible may well contains what we would term errors in these areas. This, however, is of no great consequence, since the Bible does not purport to teach science and history. For the purposes in which it was given, it is fully truthful and inerrant."

Source:
Erickson, Millard. 2013. Christian Theology. Third edition. Grand Rapids Michigan: Baker Academic. (Orig. pub. 1983.).

In-text citation: (Erickson [1983] 2013, 191–92)

 

[Deacon]

I lean toward a limited inerrancy.

"The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms."

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 259.​

Erickson calls this "full inerrancy" but it tastes and smells like "limited inerrancy" to me.
Compare his definition of inerrancy (above) with his definitions of Limited Inerrancy (below):

The Bible’s scientific and historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was written.

The Bible writers were subject to the limitations of their time

For the purposes for which the Bible was given, it is fully truthful and inerrant

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 249.​

Rob

 

[Marooncat79]

I lean toward a limited inerrancy.

"The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms."

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 259.​

Erickson calls this "full inerrancy" but it tastes and smells like "limited inerrancy" to me.
Compare his definition of inerrancy (above) with his definitions of Limited Inerrancy (below):

The Bible’s scientific and historical references reflect the understanding current at the time it was written.

The Bible writers were subject to the limitations of their time

For the purposes for which the Bible was given, it is fully truthful and inerrant

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 249.​

Rob

former is garbage = Neo-orthodoxy

latter is much more garbage = blatant denial of the authority of Scripture

 

[Deacon]

former is garbage = Neo-orthodoxy

latter is much more garbage = blatant denial of the authority of Scripture

Yeah, you’re simply reacting to the word, LIMITED.

Use your language skill and logic to defend your statement.

Rob

 

[Marooncat79]

Umm. What that I wrote do you specifically have a problem with today?

TIA

 

[Marooncat79]

Limited inerrancy= how do I know specifically what to accept as inspired?

BTW - when correctly interpreted is a definite Neo-Orthodox statement

Bible writers were subject. Can God not protect His Word no matter what generation it is written?

I’ll hang up and listen now

 

[Deacon]

Simply provide a definition of inerrancy that is not “garbage” and that fits how Scripture works

Rob

 

[Marooncat79]

All Scripture is inspired by God and is inerrant

 

[Deacon]

Limited inerrancy= how do I know specifically what to accept as inspired?

BTW - when correctly interpreted is a definite Neo-Orthodox statement

(1) Limited inerrancy does not mean limited inspiration… two different terms.

(2) The application of the term inerrancy depends upon a proper interpretation of Scripture.
A forced or improper interpretation can not rely upon the term inerrancy to back it up. That’s putting the cart before the horse.

A proper hermeneutical method leads to a correct interpretation. A correct interpretation supports “full” biblical inerrancy (using the term differently than Erickson ;-) )

Rob

 

[Marooncat79]

Scripture is inspired whether or not it is correctly interpreted.
It is still Gods Word whether or not properly understood

 

[Marooncat79]

Again, the WOG is not dependent upon anything regarding man, man’s supposed Wisdom, or Man’s Understanding


The WOG stands as the Banner period

to believe otherwise makes Scripture subservient to man

 

[Deacon]

And I agree with your last 2 posts…
But that’s not the topic at hand

Inerrancy deals with our understanding of the inspired Word of God.

An improper interpretation of the inspired truth does not mean the interpretation is inerrant.

Inerrancy rests upon proper interpretation.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

Scripture is inspired whether or not it is correctly interpreted.
It is still Gods Word whether or not properly understood

I disagree with Deacon on inerrancy but he is correct that its not the same as inspiration. Do some not understand the difference?

 

[37818]

What is not inerrant are the readers, translations, the variants which causes the manuscripts not to be inerrant. God and His word is absolutely inerrant.

 

[Deacon]

What is not inerrant are the readers, translations, the variants which causes the manuscripts not to be inerrant. God and His word is absolutely inerrant.

Peter Enns wrote what I feel is an adequate short definition of inerrancy.

THE BIBLE AS IT IS IS WITHOUT ERROR BECAUSE THE BIBLE AS IT IS IS GOD’S WORD.​

What do I believe? I believe that the Scriptures were inspired (designed and communicated with the intended purpose to introduce God and his message to mankind). The Scriptures therefore are inerrant because they reflect God’s thoughts.

Yet a simple statement that the Bible is inerrant is inadequate.
How do we explain the difficulties encountered when we faithfully study the Word of God?

How exactly did God communicate his inerrant truth to mankind.
When the Hebrew fathers thousands of years ago heard from God, were they unknowingly also privy to the full mind of God?
As Creator, God knows all things fully. Did God hide complex modern scientific theories in his Word?

[Can we find evidence of modern scientific theories in scripture?
I have a friend that believes this and has written extensively on the subject. He bases his interpretation of Scripture on this belief. I have a difficult time holding my tongue while he teaches.
I don’t believe God communicated modern scientific theories in Scripture. God communicated his Word to a pre-scientific culture and did not hide modern scientific theory within his message. It was not needed to accomplish his intended purpose.]​

Rob

 

[Van]

Inerrancy is a concept often debated. Those that do not go along are berated as lacking full trust in scripture. Will someone cite a verse that says God's word contains no errors introduced by subsequent copy making or translation. Perhaps a KJVO advocate. Let's say I write a sentence that is inerrant. Then you read the sentence and arrive at an understanding that misconstrues what I said. Can you say what I wrote was inerrant, based on your understanding?

A middle ground, held by many is that the original autographs were inerrant, because God inspired the choice of every word, but we cannot truthfully say we know that no errors have been introduced in the processes of transmission and translation.

We can say that God's word is trustworthy and reliable and its message of salvation is true.

 

[37818]

I don’t believe God communicated modern scientific theories in Scripture.

Theories of man verses miracles of God's acts. God created all the physics and laws of this created universe. Jeremiah 31:37, ". . . Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. . . ." What man believes is the observed distant past near what is thought to be the universes beginning. And the core of our earth is believed to be observed with sound and radio waves.

 

[SavedByGrace]

I lean toward a limited inerrancy.

which is another way of saying, that the Bible in the Original Autographs, had errors, and not Trustworthy, and that God LIED to us, when He says, that "ALL Scripture is Godbreathed"!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Inerrancy is a concept often debated. Those that do not go along are berated as lacking full trust in scripture. Will someone cite a verse that says God's word contains no errors introduced by subsequent copy making or translation. Perhaps a KJVO advocate. Let's say I write a sentence that is inerrant. Then you read the sentence and arrive at an understanding that misconstrues what I said. Can you say what I wrote was inerrant, based on your understanding?

A middle ground, held by many is that the original autographs were inerrant, because God inspired the choice of every word, but we cannot truthfully say we know that no errors have been introduced in the processes of transmission and translation.

We can say that God's word is trustworthy and reliable and its message of salvation is true.

Inerrancy is about the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS, and not the COPIES!

 

[SavedByGrace]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"

ALL the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS are 100% Inspired by God the Holy Spirit, where the Inspiration is DICTIONAL, as 2 Peter 1:21 says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost". "they were moved" in the Greek "φερόμενοι" is in the passive vioce, which means that God the Holy Spirit TOLD the Writers of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, what they were to wrire, every single word of it. Paul says that the Scriptures are for CORRECTION, if the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS themselves had ANY errors, then how can they be used to CORRECT? How can it make the man of God PREFECT, if it is IMPERFECT? Or Instruct in RIGHTEOUSNESS, when it is FAULTY?