To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

For one: No requirement in Scripture for faith in an inerrant book. The Scriptures require faith in Jesus, not an untenable doctrine of scripture.

Two: The book is sufficient, but not inerrant. </font>[/QUOTE]So if the bible is only sufficient but not inerrant, how do we know about Jesus? How do we know which parts about Jesus are true and which are not? How do we know he really rebuked the sea and wind? How do we know he predicted his death and resurrection? How do we know he said what the Bible says what he said?

How do you decide what is true and what isn't in the Bible and on what authority do you do so? </font>[/QUOTE]Good questions.

I accept this fact. All I need to know about Jesus is in the four Gospels. The only place I can find the teachings of Jesus is in the four Gospels. So I am going to study that story and trust the Holy Spirit to work in my heart, mind, and soul, so I can be a true disciple of Jesus. I have experienced his forgiveness and power. I want to love my neighbor as myself. I want to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and shelter the homeless. I want to feed the sick and care for those in prison. There is an assurance in my heart that when I die I will be with the Lord and all the saints who have gone before. I love the church. I know right from wrong.

But I do not believe we should make adultery a capital crime, or for that matter homosexuality or blashemy. I do not believe I have a right to sell my daughters into slavery. I eat pig meat and shellfish. And because I believe that Jesus is God I think the OT writers who told us God wanted the Hebrews to wipe out whole cities might have been a little off track. I believe that Jesus Christ is the criterion by which all scripture is to be interpreted.

I know I can have a perfect God without a perfect book because I have a perfect God without a perfect book. But the Book is all sufficient and I love it.

 

But how do you know the gospels are true? If you think the OT is errant, as you seem to indicate, then what makes you think the Gospels are correct? Do you reject the writings about Christ in the rest of the NT?

What does this have to do with the issue? You're talking about the laws given to Israel.

Why do you believe Jesus is God? It was off track for God to wipe out whole cities? That was his judgement on sin. Do you reject that as true? Why is that not true but the gospels are?

 

Marcia:

In one of your posts you mentioned you attended seminary. I'm curious as to know where.

I have my M.Div. from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. Got it in 1983, before the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC was complete and the schools had been purged of all who refused to think as told. I also spent two years at Duke Divinity School. Might help you understand my point of view if you also know I have been warped by overexposure to serious academic study of the scripture, church history, historical theology, ethics, biblical languages, and so forth.

I accused you of being ignorant in one post and I truly apologise for that. Please forgive me for that.

Dave

 

But how do you know the gospels are true? If you think the OT is errant, as you seem to indicate, then what makes you think the Gospels are correct? Do you reject the writings about Christ in the rest of the NT?

What does this have to do with the issue? You're talking about the laws given to Israel.

Why do you believe Jesus is God? It was off track for God to wipe out whole cities? That was his judgement on sin. Do you reject that as true? Why is that not true but the gospels are? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think you read my post with any desire whatsoever to try and understand what I was saying about how Jesus has become so real to me, and that even though I do not think the bible is perfect I still have a relationship with the perefect God to which the bible bears more than sufficient testimony. And I met this God in Jesus, because the Bible gives me a sufficient introduction. Sorry my faith is secure without adhering to your manmade doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

And who gives you the right to reject the laws God gave to Israel? Those laws are in the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that you and I don't have to follow all of them? Might it be the Jesus thing? If you believe God wipes out whole cities, including babies and animals, then you believe Jesus would have approved of such action. I do not and that is why when the biblical writer says God told Samuel or Moses or whoever to do it I think he was wrong. And I think that because of Jesus, the Word of God become flesh.

God acts in history. People respond to God's action. The scriptures are a record of that response, but the scriptures are not the acts themselves. Jesus is God becoming human. Jesus is The Word of God in human form. He is not the Bible made flesh he is God become flesh. The Gospels, and yes, the rest of the NT as well. are an all sufficient testimony to what God has done, and we need no other book. But the book isn't perfect.

 

I think the Bible is perfect (ie. complete) and infallible. It contains all the information we need to be saved and live a holy life. I'm not sure about inerrant. I have read so many different definitions, from different people about what they think inerrant means.

I believe what we have in the Bible is what God intended us to have. If we can't believe it, don't understand it or misinterpret it, that is our fault, due to our imperfections (sin). God is the only thing (being) that is absolutely perfect, as is His Word (see John 1). Therefore, His written word that we can hold in our hands, being part of creation, is not absolutely perfect (the Bible is not God).

I haven't been to seminary. Maybe that's my problem.

 

I think your doing fine, and I wish I had been able to express myself as succinctly as you have.

Dave

 

I think Michael 52 is right in asserting that the Bible is WHAT GOD WANTED US TO HAVE. That pretty well comes with the guarantee that there are no doctrinal errors.

The issue is that God Himself, in His wisdom, decided to use human beings and human language in preserving His revelation to us. Like it or not this was God's choice.

So we know the Bible is right - now we just need to study it! Remember God used human hands to put this to paper! There are little instance where error of human hands and of human minds crept into the Bible - don't you think that God knew this would happen if He gave the Bible over to us?

Look at the Chronicles/Kings discrepancy of 4,000/40,000!

What about the container of molten sea? How could it be exactly 10 cubits wide and 30 cubits around? That's impossible - it would have to be 3.14 cubits around!

These are examples of small human "errors" creeping into the Bible. That's just par for the course when humans are involved.

 

Charles;
Those two "errors" have been addressed a gazillion times.
4000 stalls for horses.
40,000 horses.
1Ki 4:26
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2Ch 9:25
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Molten sea. Diameter=10 cubits. Circumference=30 cubits. But HOW can this be?
The container was an hand breadth thick.(see 1 Kings 7:26)
Therefore, the 10= outside diameter. The 30= inside circumference. You will find that this works out mathematically to 3.14.

Until you can prove without a reasonable explaination; it is BEST not to lay a charge of error at the feet of God's Book. You should let God's book explain God's Book.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

I don't think anyone is in disagreement with that. What is often at issue is what constitutes doctrine. We have daily debates over women wearing pants, women preaching, headcoverings, etc, that some will take as doctrine, when those are matters of interpretation and not doctrine.

You again hit the nail on the proverbial head. Scripture does not make any such claim that it is error free in regards to text. It claims to be error free in regards to doctrine. Big difference.

There are indeed minor discrepancies in the scriptural writings (such as the color of Jesus' robe, the number of angels at Jesus' tomb and when they appeared, etc). But these are not doctrinal matters, and the discerpancies are irrelevant to the message contained within scripture. Those who deny that these discrepancies exist are either blind, or they have the preconceived notion that scripture must not contain discrepancies in order to be infallible. Scripture was not written by God, it was given by God, and inspired by God. But it was written by men.

 

I have 30 hrs. from Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC. Still have more to go!

 

Well, back to square one, I guess. I did read how real Jesus is to you and I am not questioning that. But you did not answer my question about how you know about Jesus or how you know all that the Gospels say about Jesus is true? After all, how would we know anything about Jesus now without the Bible?

This sounds a little defensive, Dave. What manmade doctrine? I don't have a manmade doctrine of inerrancy. God is perfect and so His word is perfect (I am aware of copyist and translator's errors but those are not from God and they are pretty much apparent). Inerrancy of God's word in the originals is pretty much a standard belief among Christians, at least the ones I hang out with.

You were talking about the ceremonial laws as I recall, like what one can eat. Do you really believe these were given to the church? Please show me Biblically how this is so. Since you don't believe the Bible is inerrant, however, how do you know God gave anyone these laws??

Wow! And you are a Baptist????? I'm stunned.

Yes, I believe God had whole cities wiped out. And this brings up an interesting point: you said you think we should follows the OT laws but here you don't believe God had people wipe out cities. Please tell me why you believe one and not the other.

Sufficient is not very adequate when witnessing to unbelievers. So we need to tell them that some of it is true but not all? And which parts do we tell them are not true?

You still have not told us how you know which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't?

 

Charles, why you are always bringing up this straw man? These are copyist errors and those of who believe the Bible is inerrant recognize that.

Can't we for once talk sanely? Inerrancy means the Bible is inerrant in the originals. We recognize the copies have copyist errors. Good grief, this is driving me nuts!

 

Charles, why you are always bringing up this straw man? These are copyist errors and those of who believe the Bible is inerrant recognize that.

Can't we for once talk sanely? Inerrancy means the Bible is inerrant in the originals. We recognize the copies have copyist errors. Good grief, this is driving me nuts! </font>[/QUOTE]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marcia;
They are NOT errors, nor are the COPYIST errors.
I answered them "discrepancies" quite effectively using only my Bible.
Why---oh---why must people assume the worst when the Book answers for itself very effectively if people would only read it.
To quote an eloquent lady who once said, " This is driving me nuts!"

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Marcia:

Either once again you have misunderstood me, or I did not make myself clear.

I mention the Levitical Legal Code, not ceremonial laws, to point out that you pick and choose as we all do which parts of the bible you will literally apply to modern life and which ones you will not. It was to point out the inconsistency of your position.

And you keep using the phrase, "Which parts are true and which are not." The historical narratives are historically accurate. But all biblical literature is not the same. Infallable religious truth can be conveyed through literature that is not meant to be taken literally.

And I said very clearly I accept the Gospels as the only reliable source of information about Jesus we have. That is not to say we ignore the rest at all. It is to say we bring all the rest into focus through the lens that is Jesus Christ. I am a Baptist who accepts the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. It says, and I agree, "Jesus Christ is the criterion by which the scripture is to be interpreted," or something very much to that effect.

I have enjoyed this exchange very much with you and the others, but we are obviously not going to change our positions, so I suggest we find something else to "argue" about. God bless you and have the most joyous Christmas.

Dave

 

Marcia,

Can't we for once talk sanely? Inerrancy means the Bible is inerrant in the originals. We recognize the copies have copyist errors. Good grief, this is driving me nuts!

That comment wasn't addressed to you. And in fact many on this board DO NOT accept copyist errors or anything of the like.

 

Jim,

I answered them "discrepancies" quite effectively using only my Bible.

Well you answered them but certainly not with definitive answers. You gave the ol' Josh McDowell "stand by" answers.

The two verses are almost alike except one says 4,000 and the other 40,000 - it's a copyist error. No big deal!

And how could the circumference be the inside rim of the container when it says that in could be "encircled" by 30 cubits - that implies the outside!

The point is that you're stuffing the Bible into the neat little ultrafundamentalist box and not allowing yourself to honestly approach it.

God gave Moses tablets of stone in HIS OWN hand. I'd love it if He had done the same for us - but He used men instead.

 

Doesn't matter, I can address it, can't I? It's done pretty much here on the BB.

You know I admit to copyist errors and just because some don't does not mean the doctrine of inerrancy is wrong.

 

You clearly said that you did not believe certain OT books where it is recorded that God had people wipe out cities. So I am trying to find out on what basis you choose not to believe this. This is a strikingly unusual thing to say.

 

Marcia,

You know I admit to copyist errors and just because some don't does not mean the doctrine of inerrancy is wrong.

My comment was addressed to Jim.

Copyist errors do exist - and no they do not invalidate the idea of inerrancy, unless you believe in a word for word inerrant English bible like many KJVOs do.

 

Amen Jim,
Let God be true, but every man a liar.