Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?

[Greektim]

Not only is important to define what is meant by "inerrancy" (some have done so thus far), but also speak as to what is meant by "error" in Scripture. For example, is it an error to have 2 differing accounts of the same event? For example, is there a difference in "This is my beloved Son" and "You are my beloved Son"? If so, is this an error?

I find most of the time that inerrancy deals with conflicting narratival reports in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (with a few other places) as well as the 4 gospel accounts. But these conflicting reports are good and expected. It proves that there was not collusion in their testimonies.

Other errors are based on things like geography and historical accuracy. Errors could involve human perspective (the sun setting) or hyperbole or proverbial wisdom.

When we come down to it, these things are so minor, that inerrancy itself is becoming a battle ground for such insignificant things. It is like a country going to war with itself over what color the army uniform should be.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I have a feeling that you and I might be unintentionally talking past each other.

That's quite possible.

You seem to point to experiences (ie hearing directly from God) as the means by which people get saved to day. At least some. I believe you indicated your position as we do not need the bible to get saved.

I hold that knowledge of or access to the Bible is not essential.

I do not intend to be sensationalistic but the word of God says that faith comes by the word of God.

Yes. But that does not have to be the WRITTEN word of God.

Our experiences need to be measured against God's word to verify if they are from God or not.

Yes, I agree.

The word of God is the standard of all truth. Any position that deviates from that is heresy..

Yes, I agree.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's quite possible.


I hold that knowledge of or access to the Bible is not essential.


Yes. But that does not have to be the WRITTEN word of God.


Yes, I agree.


Yes, I agree.

I'm sorry but all of this is not compatible to each other.

 

[John of Japan]

John,

You are correct, you did answer appropriately in #30, and also about Harold Lindsell.

I would point out that Harold Lindsell took part in developing and signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978 along with, "James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham." (taken from list of attenders found here)

(Personally, I have great regard for this group, though I do have some differences with individuals on individual issues as I do with all scholars)

For the readers (and John) who want to know where I got some of what I was writing, the following may help.

Perhaps you can find some of what I wrote contained in this document in pdf form.
ICBI_1

In particular you may be interested in article XIII and XV, but more so in the Exposition section under "Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation." The first four paragraphs attend to some of what I wrote (imo).

The fifth paragraph has this little statement, "The Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed."

The sixth paragraph states, "It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture (seeming discrepancies between passages) against the teaching of Scripture about itself." (insert mine related to a previous sentence in that paragraph).​

The closest thing I found in the Chicago Statement to the idea of inerrancy being only in the originals is this: "Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission."

Now, I can mostly agree with this statement. However, I have to ask, at what point did my Greek NT cease to be inerrant? When the first scribe copied it and made a couple of transmissional slips? I don't think so.

Compare the UBS Greek NT and the TR or Byz. Textform or Majority text Greek NT. You will find that in John 3:16 they are exactly alike. So, anyone, at what point did John 3:16 cease being inspired and inerrant?

The following years found the need to create the following document that is slightly related to the OP.

ICBI_2 is upon hermenutics.

There is a third document on Biblical Application can be found at ICBI_3.

In my opinion, these three documents are the framework every scholar should hang the shingle of proper understanding and teaching of Scriptures.

I developed my Bibliology not from any such statement, but well before that statement came out: from diligent study of the Scriptures, and then reading the old masters of the subject: Warfield and Gaussen (inspiration), John Burgon (textual criticism), etc.

Hope this helps with were I got some of the thinking of what I wrote.

I tend to ramble, and have gone to making more of my posts a more outlined form to keep my writing a bit more focused.

Thanks.

 

[go2church]

Not essential. Those who insist on it being essential, are creating "bible worship", that is unnecessary and unbiblical.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I'm sorry but all of this is not compatible to each other.

I strongly disagree. Feel free to point out where I err.

 

[John of Japan]

Not essential. Those who insist on it being essential, are creating "bible worship", that is unnecessary and unbiblical.

And once again someone calls something idolatry which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Having lived in Japan for decades, I have seen real idolatry in action many, many times: people bowing down and praying to Buddhas, trees, mountains, etc. Simply believing an inerrant Bible to be essential is not "Bible worship" in any way, shape or form.

 

[TCassidy]

Now, I can mostly agree with this statement. However, I have to ask, at what point did my Greek NT cease to be inerrant?

It didn't. And, as is the case so often in these types of discussions, the problem lies in our failure to define our terms so we end up talking past each other.

"Inerrant" does not mean "without any type of error including spelling, grammar, words added, dropped, or transposed, etc."

"Inerrant" means "without error of fact." The term "inerrant" was coined, or actually, borrowed from the Astronomy Department, by B. B. Warfield of Princeton Seminary around the turn of the 20th century. In Astronomy (Warfield's original major was mathematics and science before turning to Theology) the word "inerrant" ("errant" from Latin errāre to wander or, literally, "go astray") means that the planets (from the other Latin word for "wanderer" - planēta, where we get our English word "planet") do not "wander" but rather follow an orbit that keeps the Solar system orderly and insures the planets remain in their appointed positions and accomplish their appointed purpose.

The earliest star gazers named the planets "planēta" because they seemed to "wander" in relation to the other stars which remain in fixed positions relative to one another. Little did they know that the planets were, in fact, not wandering, but were so much closer that relative motion was observable, even to the apparent retrograde movement due to parallax, the change in the position of the observer as the Earth too followed its appointed orbital path.

So also the Scriptures. The words of Holy Writ do not "wander" but remain without error of fact that would remove them from their appointed place and keep them from accomplishing their appointed purpose.

The Scriptures were, are, and will remain, able to accomplish that Divine purpose for which their were given. And thus, they have not wandered, but remain, "inerrant."

I developed my Bibliology not from any such statement, but well before that statement came out: from diligent study of the Scriptures, and then reading the old masters of the subject: Warfield and Gaussen (inspiration), John Burgon (textual criticism), etc.

You and me both. I think we must have gone to different schools together.

 

[John of Japan]

It didn't. And, as is the case so often in these types of discussions, the problem lies in our failure to define our terms so we end up talking past each other.

"Inerrant" does not mean "without any type of error including spelling, grammar, words added, dropped, or transposed, etc."

"Inerrant" means "without error of fact." The term "inerrant" was coined, or actually, borrowed from the Astronomy Department, by B. B. Warfield of Princeton Seminary around the turn of the 20th century. In Astronomy (Warfield's original major was mathematics and science before turning to Theology) the word "inerrant" ("errant" from Latin errāre to wander or, literally, "go astray") means that the planets (from the other Latin word for "wanderer" - planēta, where we get our English word "planet") do not "wander" but rather follow an orbit that keeps the Solar system orderly and insures the planets remain in their appointed positions and accomplish their appointed purpose.

The earliest star gazers named the planets "planēta" because they seemed to "wander" in relation to the other stars which remain in fixed positions relative to one another. Little did they know that the planets were, in fact, not wandering, but were so much closer that relative motion was observable, even to the apparent retrograde movement due to parallax, the change in the position of the observer as the Earth too followed its appointed orbital path.

So also the Scriptures. The words of Holy Writ do not "wander" but remain without error of fact that would remove them from their appointed place and keep them from accomplishing their appointed purpose.

The Scriptures were, are, and will remain, able to accomplish that Divine purpose for which their were given. And thus, they have not wandered, but remain, "inerrant."

Excellent information. Thank you.

You and me both. I think we must have gone to different schools together.

Old school all the way! Thumbsup

 

[TomLaPalm]

The recent posts show the excellent knowledge available on this site, thank you

Different accounts of the same events are not examples of error, Contradictions in fact from one translation or even in copies may be considered errors. It is a matter of degree. However, what man decides the allowance or judges the original meanings as compared to a copy. What is insignificant error and what changes the intentions of presentation.
We agree translations are man's opinions of the original meanings and are not inspired.

But since we believe the originals are the inspired Word of God . they must be inerrant not just in meaning.

We can judge what might be inerrant, but to do so suggests we know all about the complexities scripture.

Who are we to say what changes fact?

To accept that any errors( in fact) exist , is a trap. as is to suggest error exists in " unimportant" items .

What is important and what is not?

 

[go2church]

And once again someone calls something idolatry which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Having lived in Japan for decades, I have seen real idolatry in action many, many times: people bowing down and praying to Buddhas, trees, mountains, etc. Simply believing an inerrant Bible to be essential is not "Bible worship" in any way, shape or form.

It's not simple to believe inerrancy, even those who claim to be inerrantist can't agree on what it means. If it only applies to originals it's only a theory that can not be confirmed this side of glory. If you apply it to more than the originals, which copy? How do you know which one is the right one? At this point isn't it just your opinion? How can opinion be essential? This looks like to me it is creating a place for the bible never intended, a place of reverence equal to that reserved only for God.

 

[TCassidy]

It's not simple to believe inerrancy, even those who claim to be inerrantist can't agree on what it means.

John and I agree on what it means. In fact I know very few believers who disagree about the meaning of the term.

If it only applies to originals it's only a theory that can not be confirmed this side of glory.

You obviously didn't read my post, above.

If you apply it to more than the originals, which copy?

All of them. The entire textucopia. Duh!

How do you know which one is the right one?

Because all of them are "the right one."

At this point isn't it just your opinion?

Isn't that just your opinion?

How can opinion be essential?

Faith is essential.

This looks like to me it is creating a place for the bible never intended, a place of reverence equal to that reserved only for God.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

 

[go2church]

I don't know of anyone who claims inerrancy for the manuscripts. The ridiculousness of such has been pretty well established.

Now If you are claiming inerrancy applies to purpose (planets and such), then that is not inerrancy as described by the the Chicago Statement and most others. You say people agree, but I'm not sure that's the case. Inerrancy of words and Inerrancy of purpose are two very different things.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't know of anyone who claims inerrancy for the manuscripts. The ridiculousness of such has been pretty well established.

My post was in response to a clearly stated quote from the Chicago Statement.

"Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission."

My post addressed people (like you) who have a flawed understanding of what is meant by "inerrancy."

Now If you are claiming inerrancy applies to purpose (planets and such), then that is not inerrancy as described by the the Chicago Statement and most others. You say people agree, but I'm not sure that's the case. Inerrancy of words and Inerrancy of purpose are two very different things.

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote. Go back and read it again.

The Chicago Statement says "God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture" - which is a true statement as the bible never mentions the historic transmission of scripture. The rest of the statement concerns inspiration, not inerrancy.

My statements on inerrancy are historical. It is the origin of the term and how it was applied, historically, by the originator and most respected defender of bible infallibility.

 

[John of Japan]

TCassidy has well answered your post, so I'll not do so except to say,

Now If you are claiming inerrancy applies to purpose (planets and such),

Huh?????

That statement doesn't even make sense. What in the world are you talking about? Inerrancy and purpose? What do you mean by that?

"Planets and such...." What does that even mean? I read English fluently, but that is a weird statement.

 

[go2church]

John said he was holding in his hands an inerrant copy, thus my reference to manuscripts.

Planets and such are reference to what TCassidy wrote earlier trying to explain the origins of the word inerrant.

Infallibility and inerrancy are not the same thing.

 

[John of Japan]

John said he was holding in his hands an inerrant copy, thus my reference to manuscripts.

Um, I certainly wasn't holding manuscripts. Get it right.

Infallibility and inerrancy are not the same thing.

And your point is?

 

[go2church]

When I hold my Greek NT and Hebrew OT in my hand, I am holding the perfect, inerrant Word of God.

Okay. My point was that John extended inerrancy to a copy, beyond the originals.

They aren't the same, that's the point. TCassidy ended his last statement with the phrase "defender of infallibility".

 

[TCassidy]

Okay. My point was that John extended inerrancy to a copy, beyond the originals.

Yes. My bible is the inerrant word of God in English translation (I'll go one step farther than John). It is without error of fact that would remove it from its appointed place and keep it from accomplishing its appointed purpose. My bible is "able to make thee wise unto salvation."

They aren't the same, that's the point. TCassidy ended his last statement with the phrase "defender of infallibility".

Yes. We all know that. My point was, prior to Warfield the most often word used to describe the bible was "infallible." Meaning "unable to fail" in its intended purpose.

Warfield adopted the Astronomical term to illustrate why the bible was infallible. Inerrancy results in infallibility. Because the bible is without error of fact (inerrant) it will never fail to accomplish its purpose (infallible).

 

[John of Japan]

Okay. My point was that John extended inerrancy to a copy, beyond the originals.

Now you are starting to get it. So tell me. What error exists in my Byzantine textform Greek NT that did not exist in the original manuscripts?