There are those that argue that one can be a Christian and deny an inerrant Bible, deny the Canon, and yet at the same time claim to be a Christian. What do you say?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Bible Inerrancy an essential?
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
- Status
I say...on what do they base their salvation?
Have they been elected?
One can definitely be a Christian and disagree with the premise and presuppositions of inerrancy (whatever that might happen to mean at the moment). I am one. Please note that inerrancy is a different thing from the Bible being God's word, the Bible being reliable, etc.
Where is the canon defined in scripture? What does "denying" it mean?
A life-transforming encounter with Jesus and a life of discipleship?
How do they encounter Jesus if they do not have a reliable Bible?
The original scripture with original meanings as given by God must be inerrant or in effect we are saying God makes mistakes and is not perfect and thus is not God.
Translations are not inspired and although may be sincere or not ,are works of man.
Understanding of the original meanings is not a criteria of Truth. I must accept what God has presented as Truth. not man's opinion of the meanings
Translations are not inspired and although may be sincere or not ,are works of man.
Understanding of the original meanings is not a criteria of Truth. I must accept what God has presented as Truth. not man's opinion of the meanings
I doubt that many on this board truly believe in an inerrant bible that exists and can held in one's hand.
Let's be honest now.
How many of you on this board believe you can get a copy of a bible that is without error?
it would seem only us "crazy" KJO people believe in one of those...
Let's be honest now.
How many of you on this board believe you can get a copy of a bible that is without error?
it would seem only us "crazy" KJO people believe in one of those...
Explain to me what inerrancy is and why you are one that denies it.
Exactly so it would be an essential truth of the Christian faith then?
Wrong discussion for this thread. But yes I do believe in an inerrant Bible that is perfect. However its in the original autographs.
There are so many false premises here, it is hard to know where to start. And unfortunately, I have only about five minutes before I have to go, so let me hit the highlights.
You have tied reliability and inerrancy together, when they are parallel concepts. Ironically, most scholarly views of inerrancy only claim it for the original autographs - with a long list of caveats - and not to copies we have today. So if you claim inerrancy (according the mainstream viewpoints), they you are in effect saying you cannot be 100% certain that the Bible you hold is your hand is reliable. Therefore - using your theology - how can someone encounter Jesus today?
I assert that inerrancy is TOO LOW of a view of scripture because of this issue. Moreover, these arguments about the reliability of scripture have always struck me as quite strange, based on my experience. In college, when I was an agnostic and trying to figure out what was true, the 66 books of the Protestant New Testament fed me. The words were alive in my life, not as words themselves, but as divine communication that spoke to the deepest needs and yearnings of my soul. For someone to make a rational argument to me that the Bible is the reliable word of God is like someone telling me that USDA Prime steak is tasty. Some people serve up steak in a tastier way than others, but it is hard to ruin good meat. In the same way, some people serve up the scripture in a better way than others, but it is still powerful in incompetent hands.
The other major issue I have with your question is that it implies that one can only come to Jesus through a Bible ("reliable" or not). That's simply false. Persons come to faith in Jesus through God's drawing of them and their willingness to trust in Jesus. How does one come to know Jesus? Through the faculties of the mind, as well as the spirit. There are countless people throughout the ages who have been made right with God without the benefit of scripture (Abraham is an obvious example), so the lack of an accessible "reliable" Bible is not really the impediment you make it out to be.
I have to go.
It should be the gospel which is what saves as Christ saves.
if we did have an original copy some would worship it, like the Sikhs of India .
The purpose of scripture is to transfer information from God to man. It is not a secret.
Does any one recall the name of the doctrins that say the purpose of scripture is to be known?
How can reliability and inerrancy be independent. ?
Is something reliable even though it is wrong? or is something wrong, reliable?
I guess I could be reliable to be wrong, maybe striking out in baseball
We might can accept a weather report as mostly right and sometimes reliable but not the Word of God.
This is false and an impossibility. Abraham talked with God. Therefore he received the word directly from God. Since no one alive today has received direct revelation your claim is false. One cannot know Christ and come to salvation outside of God's word. Period.
Holding experience equal to scripture is heresy.
I believ eyou and I have had this conversation a number of times.
The Bible translation and version forum would be awfully quiet if one accepts that the modern translations are without error or in some manner less factual than the original manuscripts.
I want to offend no one by the next statement, but it is never-the-less true that those who hold to strict inerrancy of the modern texts are somewhat misinformed.
The original texts were certainly inerrant, and also the copies that immediately followed. But, when one translates the original into Latin, Greek, English, along the way, there must be and include some dimension and rational approach.
One might suggest that the translators did the best they could using the tools available, and that is to be admired.
As a result, the Scriptures are without error or fault in the doctrine and teaching. One can effectively under the leadership of the Holy Spirit "learn all things," and as a side may be able to sift the teaching of others to discern what is of God and what is not.
I want to offend no one by the next statement, but it is never-the-less true that those who hold to strict inerrancy of the modern texts are somewhat misinformed.
The original texts were certainly inerrant, and also the copies that immediately followed. But, when one translates the original into Latin, Greek, English, along the way, there must be and include some dimension and rational approach.
One might suggest that the translators did the best they could using the tools available, and that is to be admired.
As a result, the Scriptures are without error or fault in the doctrine and teaching. One can effectively under the leadership of the Holy Spirit "learn all things," and as a side may be able to sift the teaching of others to discern what is of God and what is not.
Which could describe a Jehovah's Witness as well.
- Status