Is The Bible Inerrant?

[no_one]

Wait a second, I'm confused. I thought the bible is the perfect Word of God.

Don’t worry, it is.

I'm sorry, but there is a ton of material in there on how we are to live our lives. I refuse to believe we should just focus on the "salvation" aspect of it, and brush off other things. It's easy for us Christians to side skirt textual issues arguments, but I think we should really address this.

I entirely agree.

I just don't get how a perfect God, would create an imperfect bible, or allow it to come that way.

That’s indeed a logical paradox for those who don’t believe in a literal Bible: the Christian evolutionists (I include here those who believe in big bang but don’t believe in biological evolution, because biological evolution is only one of the 4 forms of evolution).

Yes, but here we reach another discussion and that is of those who do not believe the 10 commandments are to be followed anymore.

I think they are. True, we know in our heart that we’re doing something wrong when we’re doing something wrong (when we’re sinning). But the Commandments provide the technical explanation. They tell us that we are indeed (unequivocally) sinners, and thus we need Christ. If we remove them, then there’s no need for Christ either. There would be no technical indicator telling us that we sin or not. Only our heart, but that’s easily ignored (or called to be subjective).


Jesus didn’t come to cancel the 10 Commandments. On the contrary, He made them even worse for us. Prior to Jesus, having sex outside marriage was a sin. Jesus said that even THINKING about having sex outside marriage is a sin (equal to the factual sex). So we’re indeed in deep trouble. And the same could be said about the rest of Commandments.


And speaking about that, I have to tell something wonderful: I had a period of 10 days during which I never thought about women with any amount of lust. On the contrary, I thought of any woman or girl that I saw on the streets or wherever as my sister. It wasn’t anything that I did, it was a gift from above: God’s grace. To show me how peaceful and wonderful is to give my heart (this treacherous thing) to God, instead of keeping it for myself. But then that period ended, and of course I returned to being a sinner. Not in body, but in occasional thoughts. But this difference is one that God doesn’t make, so let me not delude myself.


Furthermore, the irony is that my fall (in that regard) came through a Christian, actually a good friend. Something he said (he invited me to a party) made me to fall again. I think satan has so much fun seeing how little puppets we let ourselves to be in his hands.


Now, returning to the Commandments, this has lately troubled me: do we keep the Sabbath or not?


Whenever I hear the Sabbath keepers (mostly the Adventists), I think they’re right. But whenever I hear the other Christians, those who instead keep the Sunday, I also think they’re right. So, sorry, but at this time I don’t have personal solid arguments for either side.


But I can tell you what I do: I go to Church both Saturdays (to an Adventist Church) and Sundays (mostly to a Baptist Church, but occasionally also to Orthodox and Catholic Churches).


I don’t personally like that the Adventists add Ellen White to the Bible. I especially don’t like that Ellen White propagated that pagan belief that there are other populated planets in the universe. Talking exclusively scientific, one is hard-pressed to find ANY planet in the universe (beyond our solar system). The existence of exoplanets is inferred - not substantiated. Other explanations may very well stand (ironically, even in mainstream itself there have been publicized alternative explanations, such as twin stars - instead of star and planet).


Other than that, however, I find Adventists to be solid Christians. I feel really good both with them and in their Church. At this moment, most of my friends are Adventist. Although I will never ever become a formal Adventist member myself - solely because of Ellen White.

If we keep the Ten Commandments, then we keep the entire mosaic law

No. God’s Commandments are one thing, and the Mosaic ritual is another thing. They are indeed directly connected, but not the same thing. And by the way, the most important part of the Mosaic ritual, the sacrifice, was fulfilled in Jesus. No surprise then that God made it so that the Jews couldn’t hold their sacrifices anymore (the destruction of the Temple).

 

[no_one]

that we died when Christ died

That’s the question each of us has to answer: did we really? Or our habits are still with us?

 

[no_one]

Major, please excuse me for repeating or stressing some of the points that you made in regard to historic documents.


I only later saw that you addressed it, and since by that time I already wrote my reply to Newdad, I decided to keep it, instead of deleting it - if only to reinforce what you said. Please don’t take offence, I certainly didn’t want to steal anything from you. I have been using those arguments for quite some time now, in my discussions with atheists (and I know that others have been using them as well). Please understand. Thank you.

 

[Glomung]

"either inerrant in EVERYTHING that contains, or wrong in EVERYTHING that contains"

How is that so? I see no rational basis for that statement.
God did not write it, men did. Inspired is not the same as literally true.
Are the Psalms literally true? No, they are poems and prayers.
Are any of the parables literally true? No.
Are mustard seeds actually the smallest of seeds? Not even close.
I'll stick by the Magisterium which states "The Bible is inerrant as concerns salvation, not as concerns history or science."
That agrees completely with Paul's statement that
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. 2 Timothy 3:16,17.

Nowhere in all that does scripture need to be literally true.

 

[no_one]

God did not write it, men did.

True, but men wrote it in front of God. Especially the Old Testament. Read Malachi.

Are the Psalms literally true? No, they are poems and prayers.

That may be, but how does that mean they aren’t true? Give examples, so that we both know what we’re talking about.

Are any of the parables literally true? No.

Depends what you understand by that. But in general, if they aren’t true (real), then they don’t refer to us, and thus there’s no point in reading them. In other words, are you claiming that parables do not refer to real, literal things?

Are mustard seeds actually the smallest of seeds? Not even close.

Read section “Botanical problems: what is meant by mustard?” (and only that section) from here:

http://ww2.odu.edu/~lmusselm/plant/bible/mustard.php


or this:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...Articles/GTJ-NT/Sproule-MatMustard-GTJ-80.pdf

I'll stick by the Magisterium which states "The Bible is inerrant as concerns salvation, not as concerns history or science."

I find that to be a very strange statement, since there are many scientific things in the Bible that mainstream science has come to align itself to, over the millennia. I find deeply ironic that Christians are afraid to claim the science from the Bible, while the mainstream that they believe so dearly in is not (although not directly so, or aware).


A couple of examples. At the largest scale: cosmic expansion. At the smallest scale: diseases transmissible through invisible means (germs).


And literally (pun intended) dozens of other examples in between, such as the hydrological cycle.

That agrees completely with Paul's statement that

I’m sorry but Magisterium statement disagrees highly with Paul’s statement, since Paul said, as you showed:

“ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD”.


All of it. So I was right to say that it’s either entirely right, or entirely wrong.


As for “AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE”, can you give me any example of people, except for YECs, that make doctrine from Genesis?


Similarly, for “OR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS”.


So, do we use Genesis for our instruction, and our correction, or do we instead “correct” Genesis to say whatever we want it to say, according to worldly theories?


The same can be said for the rest of the verse that you quoted. So thank you for reminding me that verse, I think it’s one of the strongest against a liberal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Glomung]

I accept Genesis as being allegory. I have no need to interpret it literally.
Any more than I need to believe that Noah had 2 million+ beetles on his ark.

 

[Lifeasweknowit]

I feel if you can dispute some parts of the bible as being metaphors, allegory or what have you, then the entire bible is up to the same interpretation, which leads to huge issues when confronting topics like sex before marriage, homosexuality, the end times, etc.

 

[Newdad]

Thank you for all your thoughts and information on here. I truly appreciate it. I as a newbie christian love studying and learning as much as I can on the word. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant but that does not lesson my belief in the word and in the resurrection. I don't see how you can have an inerrant Bible now if it is different than those of the older Greek manuscript Bibles. If they are different in any way then the Bible either now or then is not inerrant. When you consider the Bible consists 66 books written by maybe 24 or more authors over at least six hundred years when there was no printing press and literacy was rare its not surprising to see how copies and copies of the Bible would have changed over the years. Whether it be on accident, by transcription error or because the clergy of one area wanted to change or emphasize a part of the Bible for their followers. I don't see how inerrantists consolidate this fact. How and why are there are so many old Greek Manuscripts and how they are all different in thousands of ways? And how can we be certain that the version we have and read now is the correct perfect version? I have a very logical mind and this view makes sense to me. However, despite the differences between Bibles and discrepancies the main message is ALWAYS the same and that is what I hold dear.

 

[Roads]

I feel if you can dispute some parts of the bible as being metaphors, allegory or what have you, then the entire bible is up to the same interpretation, which leads to huge issues when confronting topics like sex before marriage, homosexuality, the end times, etc.

When we read Jesus' parables, don't we accept that Jesus used devices like allegory and metaphor to make fictional narratives that convey Truth? We don't read, say, Matthew 13:1-9 (parable of the sower) and say that we can dismiss it as being "just an allegory." Instead, we realize that there is Truth being taught though this fictional narrative that we can apply to our lives. Also, if we don't understand how reading a parable is different from reading a factual account (i.e., we take a literal reading of Jesus' parables) we won't be able to arrive at the Truth being taught through those narratives. It doesn't matter whether or not Matthew 13:1-9 is a true story, what matters is that it teaches Truth. Accepting that the Bible does include uses of narrative devices doesn't dispute its authority to teach Truth, it just means that we have to understand how to read what we're reading.

 

[th1bill]

"either inerrant in EVERYTHING that contains, or wrong in EVERYTHING that contains"

How is that so? I see no rational basis for that statement.
God did not write it, men did. Inspired is not the same as literally true.

Glomung,
Here we part company. You have, by saying this, placed God in a box. All scripture is authored by God, the Limitless God.

 

[th1bill]

I feel if you can dispute some parts of the bible as being metaphors, allegory or what have you, then the entire bible is up to the same interpretation, which leads to huge issues when confronting topics like sex before marriage, homosexuality, the end times, etc.

In the science of Hermeneutics we are taught to read the scriptures carefully and I was also taught that we must be, not only indwelt with and by the Holy Spirit but that we must not, ever, quench the same. My prime example here is one of my favorite passages, Matt. 22:1-14. Jesus, quite clearly tells us this passage is a metaphor in the first verse. It is a metaphorical illustration of a set of facts.

Over stating will get you into trouble, young'un.

 

[no_one]

I accept Genesis as being allegory.

That’s not ACCEPTING Genesis. On the contrary.

I have no need to interpret it literally.

Firstly, why do you feel the NEED to accept worldly paradigms as literal? And why would you NOT feel the same need in regard to the Bible?


Secondly, viewing a text as literal means NO INTERPRETATION, or very close to that.

Any more than I need to believe that Noah had 2 million+ beetles on his ark.

Even if that would be true, I don’t see how exactly that was a problem for Noah.


Oh, and immensely more importantly, do you know WHO was with Noah, on the Ark, for the entire time? A clear example how it MATTERS to read the right Bible (for English language, that would be KJV, in regard at least to the Old Testament).


But Noah’s flood is indeed a problem for you if you don’t believe in a global flood. A huge problem. One that makes Christian evolutionists calling God a liar - without even realizing that. Simply because local floods STILL happen.

 

[no_one]

I feel if you can dispute some parts of the bible as being metaphors, allegory or what have you, then the entire bible is up to the same interpretation, which leads to huge issues when confronting topics like sex before marriage, homosexuality, the end times, etc.

I entirely agree.

 

[no_one]

I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant

Then you don’t have a logical reason to believe in the Bible at all. It’s either from God or it isn’t - it’s that simple.


A god unable to clearly state his thoughts is no god at all. And a god unable to preserve his own word is no god at all. It’s that simple, regardless if we like it or not.

but that does not lesson my belief in the word and in the resurrection.

I’m not sure how you can see that. And perhaps you meant “lessen”.

I don't see how you can have an inerrant Bible now if it is different than those of the older Greek manuscript Bibles.

But THAT is exactly the point that I have been making all along: that it ISN’T different.

When you consider the Bible consists 66 books written by maybe 24 or more authors over at least six hundred years

Actually, more than 40 authors, and over millennia, not centuries. Which means what? Let me tell you what all that means: nothing. Simply because a REAL God would preserve His own Word. Moreover, He would so ACCURATELY.

its not surprising to see how copies and copies of the Bible would have changed over the years.

Either you PROVE those endless claims of yours that the Bible has changed content through time, or STOP making those claims. It’s that simple.


You’re leading others astray as well, not just yourself.

How and why are there are so many old Greek Manuscripts and how they are all different in thousands of ways?

They are NOT different.


However, there were people who didn’t like some of the things in the Bible (just like people of today - for example the evolutionists) and those heretic people (for example the Alexandrians) did indeed remove some parts from the Bible, or changed some words. But we are aware of those people - from the old or from today. For example, there have been “bibles” where the word “day” doesn’t appear in Genesis 1 (instead, it appears “era” or whatever). Those “bibles” have been quite plenty since the theory of biological evolution.

And how can we be certain that the version we have and read now is the correct perfect version?

For the Old Testament, compare your Bible with the Hebrew text - there are some sites doing that. You will find that KJV stands closest to the original.


For the New Testament, compare your version of the Bible with the Greek text. Again, KJV seems closer.

However, despite the differences between Bibles and discrepancies the main message is ALWAYS the same and that is what I hold dear.

How exactly is “the same”?


Even atheists admit that the god of evolution is very diabolical indeed (no purpose to anything, a lot of gratuitous suffering, etcetera). Only Christian evolutionists somehow manage to convince themselves to NOT see that.


The Biblical God, on the other hand, SPOKE (parts of) the universe into existence. If that’s not simple, elegant and beautiful, I don’t know what is.


Moreover, in evolution suffering and death (as the rule of all things) become features of god, while the Biblical God is clear: suffering and death are entirely due to mankind not listening to God.

We don't read, say, Matthew 13:1-9 (parable of the sower) and say that we can dismiss it as being "just an allegory." Instead, we realize that there is Truth being taught though this fictional narrative that we can apply to our lives.

How exactly do you know that the parables are “fictional narratives”?

Also, if we don't understand how reading a parable is different from reading a factual account (i.e., we take a literal reading of Jesus' parables) we won't be able to arrive at the Truth being taught through those narratives.

The irony that you don’t see is that you MUST first consider it literally and only THEN add additional content (teaching).

It doesn't matter whether or notMatthew 13:1-9 is a true story

It appears to me that you believe that it isn’t a true story only for you to be able to then claim it isn’t a true story, and thus we should take it only as “fictional narrative”.

 

[Roads]

How exactly do you know that the parables are “fictional narratives”?
...
The irony that you don’t see is that you MUST first consider it literally and only THEN add additional content (teaching).
...
It appears to me that you believe that it isn’t a true story only for you to be able to then claim it isn’t a true story, and thus we should take it only as “fictional narrative”.

When I read the Bible, I look for textual cues to help shape my understanding of how to read any particular passage. God's perfectly capable of using narrative devices to teach Truth. I think this is clear in the case of Jesus' parables, as well as in prophecy. Knowing that God has chosen to use narrative devices to convey meaning, I think it's important to keep an eye out for them as you study scripture. So, for example, I certainly do not think we should read one of Jesus' parables and "we should take it only as 'fictional narrative,'” I think we should take it as "the method by which Jesus has chosen to teach us Truth."

At any rate, I think the role of the Spirit to reveal scriptural Truths as we study is far more significant than are the particular ways we study the text. I can understand, and appreciate, the logic you use to arrive at a conclusion like "you MUST first consider it literally and only THEN add additional content," because it shows that you value Truth, and so do I. The main position I was putting forth was not an argument that "Jesus' parables definitely need to be fictional accounts," but to demonstrate the value of recognizing and understanding how to read narrative devices in scripture. Whether the actual narrative of a particular parable is a factual account or a fictional account is irrelevant -- either way, Jesus is still making use of analogy/metaphor. Similarly, prophecy frequently makes use of symbolism, which is a narrative device where we don't assume a literal reading. My main purpose was to show that we can recognize that the Bible uses narrative devices, but that this in no way disputes the authority of the Bible to teach Truth.

My personal experience is that lots of Christians use lots of different study methods, and I'm glad for it, because it means that on a forum like this, I have the opportunity to consider many ideas and perspectives from other Christians, all guided by the same Spirit from whom I seek guidance.

 

[Julio191]

Maybe Newdad would like to read Deuteronomy 29v29 which says " The secret things belong to our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
Or this passage in Matthew 11v25 which says"..... because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children". Or this other one in matthew 18v3 which says " ... I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
Sometimes we want to question things of the bible because we may have read some book or other written by a prominent person but I prefer to believe the Lord and His Word. We have to be like children here. Their faith is beautiful, sincere, unquestionable, pure and admirable. I wish sometimes I could always have that kinf of faith.
Those who consider themselves clever should read 1 Corinthians 1 v25, which says " for the foolishness of God is wiser than man´s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man´s strength"
Blessings Julio191

 

[Intojoy]

Hello, this is my very first post on here. Although I have been reading it for months this is my actual first post. My friend recommended I come on here to help answer my questions as I am a Christian newbie.

I have been studying the Bible and reading many books about the Bible (mostly pro but some con). One book, however, that I found both interesting and troubling was Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I'm sure many have heard of this but it is a historical account of textual criticism of the Bible. Although I do take the book with a grain of salt, I do agree very much with his main point. How can the Bible be inerrant if we have no original copy as God wrote it and it has been copied and copied over and over through hundreds if not thousands of years? Especially considering many of the people who made copies were practically illiterate. To think that no mistakes were made from the original to a version hundreds of years later that was eventually declared as canon by the church I find troubling. His contention is that there are thousands of old Biblical manuscripts that have since been found that were written and they all are different in some ways. Some are obviously different from errors from a transcriber, but some are different in their additions or subtractions of certain scriptures.

How can the Bible as we know it now be inerrant if for instance John 7:53 (“Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her”) was added after the fact as it wasn't in any of the old Greek Biblical manuscripts from the early times. Or the last 12 verses of Mark having been added much later as those are in the early Biblical manuscripts as well (my version of the Bible even has these verses in brackets). Was the Bible inerrant when it was originally written but is no longer inerrant because of the small changes? I find this to be confusing.

I know there have been discussion on here about Bible contradictions which have been interesting but little has been discussed about textual criticism. If the Bible we have today is different than a Bible found to be dated around 300 AD, one of them is not inerrant. Why is the ESV or KJ version inerrant but not the old Greek Manuscripts from over 1000 years ago?

Thanks

The original autographs were divinely inspired and without error. Manuscripts and translations were not. However the manuscript evidence can be used to prove that our translations are intact and without error as far as the manuscripts read.

I can answer most so called contradictions in the bible. I haven't heard a valid one yet. How do we handle the question of the woman in adultery and the Mark passage? It is important not to build a doctrine around such passages for that very reason. It may have been added by the church or it may have been part of the original. In either case neither passage takes away from the life and times of the Messiah recorded in the gospels.

 

[Great Fiction]

Is The Bible Inerrant?

Would it be reasonable to ponder that truth is given to man from our Lord, as willing vessels who consecrate themselves to Christ (for Christ is the truth), who then will disseminate knowledge in doctrinal context (Bible), which then give the prudent the rigors of principle to form axiomatic foundation, where many will construct hermeneutics?

Shall hermeneutics’ be diverse and provide grounds for argument often inside the body, yet the foundation of truth, which is Christ is dogma, unmovable truth etched in stone that will never pass away.

If there is a flaw, then I would suggest quickly that it is not in the truth which is the foundation (Christ) for the disseminated context, yet when the context of the truth is written, it would be prudent to ask if the written or translated dialog to be grammatically flawless, will it be translated or transliterated flawlessly?

Shall a paraphrase, be more scrutinized than a transliteration and shall transliteration out of context be more scrutinized that a direct translation in context? Also to be more complex shall an indirect translation be more scrutinized than a direct one? Also can it be received that a direct translation from one language which is superior in grammatical complexity is most challenged to be property translated and distilled down into an inferior language with less description and grammatical support?

Yet my pondering will often get me into trouble, only to say we must be diligent to know what was written. Shall most direct translations be very accurate in my opinion.

 

[RiverJordan]

When fundamentalist Christians insist to me that the Bible is inerrant, my first question is always: Which Bible?

And I'm always fascinated by those who think in such black/white terms, like "either the entire Bible is 100% true, or it's all 100% false". It's a mode of thinking I have trouble relating to.

 

[no_one]

When fundamentalist Christians insist to me that the Bible is inerrant, my first question is always: Which Bible?

There is only one Bible. To find out if yours qualifies as a copy of it, compare it online with the text in the original language (Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament). But I think I already said this. Even in this thread, if I’m not mistaking.

However, there is something even more important in what you said: where exactly would one draw the line? Where would one stop liberally interpreting the Bible? Where exactly would one stop reading what he or she wants to read, and instead start to actually read the Bible?

And why would they draw the line there (wherever that is), and not either earlier or later? In my view a position compromised from the start (let’s interpret the Bible) can only compromise one’s all following positions (positions on all topic).

And I'm always fascinated by those who think in such black/white terms, like "either the entire Bible is 100% true, or it's all 100% false". It's a mode of thinking I have trouble relating to.

I think your trouble comes from the fact that you’re cherry picking, instead of fully embracing. Ironically, not only the Bible, but also the formal paradigms. For example, you believe in God, while the formal paradigms are entirely naturalistic (thus excluding God).

Unlike you, I don’t have problems with people keeping the Bible as the Word of God. On the contrary, I have trouble with people who while reading Genesis they somehow think they’re reading the big bang theory. Or Darwin’s theory.