Is the bible inerrant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Traverse
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Traverse

Guest
Salutations to all.

In a recent thread the subject of the bible being inerrant came up. It was shared by a participant in that thread that it might be more suitable to have a new thread on the subject.

So what do you think? I understand what the catholic church teaches on the matter, that it is inerrant, and I also understand that many denominations believe such as well. But it is certainly the habit of some to consider it a product of its time, a book written by infallible men about their experiences with God and nothing more.

I do not see the logic in believing in God when you learn from Him in a book that you do not trust. I see those who suggest that the bible is not inerrant, yet able to derive teaching from it where they see fit, as an unjustifiable means of gaining knowledge. I do not understand how they discern what to dismiss in the word and what to hold fast to.

Any thoughts and opinions?

Thank you.
 
Depends on what you mean by inerrant.

It is inerrant when it comes to faith and morals, but not necessarily on “facts”. For example the gospels disagree with the number of angels at Christs tomb. A rather unimportant fact, but only one of the accounts within can be true.

The bible, though important, is not, and should not be, the sole source through which we learn about God.
 
The Bible is a guide and faithful witness of other’s experience with God…and points me toward the God found in Jesus of Nazareth…but it is not ‘without error’…I guess we could define “inerrant” as “with textual errors and variations but still faithful to relaying the witness of those writers and their experience with God.”

Is the Bible without error…no it is not…“inerrant” means “without error” does it not?

The Johanine coma or the ending of the Lord’s Prayer…how many angels were at the tomb…how many women were at the tomb…who went to Jesus to ask to sit at his right hand in his coming kingdom…James and John’s mom…or James and John? Which version of the nativity is correct? Both can’t be absolute fact…did Joseph and Mary live in a house in Bethlehem and move to Nazareth…or were they in Nazareth and went to Bethlehem. Did both theives taunt Jesus while on the cross or just one?

Which textual variants throughout the various manuscripts are “inerrant”…how do we tell? There’s no originals…so which copy is “inerrant”?
 
Hi, non-Christian here, but I thought I’d add my opinion on the matter.

I think it’s possible to derive meaning from a work while being skeptical of that work. I think that one of the problems with biblical inerrancy is when some people insist on treating it like a science textbook when it was written in an age when people didn’t have the tools or the understanding that we have in this day and age.

Perhaps it’s because I come from a tradition that doesn’t have “sacred texts” but I think that sometimes this obsession over biblical inerrancy borders on bibliolatry, and while books are awesome, I think there’s a real problem when you let reverence for a book eclipse your reverence for God.
 
Lokabrenna said:
Hi, non-Christian here, but I thought I’d add my opinion on the matter.

I think it’s possible to derive meaning from a work while being skeptical of that work. I think that one of the problems with biblical inerrancy is when some people insist on treating it like a science textbook when it was written in an age when people didn’t have the tools or the understanding that we have in this day and age.

Perhaps it’s because I come from a tradition that doesn’t have “sacred texts” but I think that sometimes this obsession over biblical inerrancy borders on bibliolatry, and while books are awesome, I think there’s a real problem when you let reverence for a book eclipse your reverence for God.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Nine_Two said:
Depends on what you mean by inerrant.

It is inerrant when it comes to faith and morals, but not necessarily on “facts”. For example the gospels disagree with the number of angels at Christs tomb. A rather unimportant fact, but only one of the accounts within can be true.

The bible, though important, is not, and should not be, the sole source through which we learn about God.
Click to expand...
👍
 
I think that being staunchly for or against the Bible’s inerrancy is to take the text out of proper boundaries of interpretation. For example, when looking at the Pauline Epistles, it’s important to remember that these were occasional letters, written in response to specific situations. There is thus both “cultural” and “timeless” truth contained within.

I like the stance the Church of the Nazarene takes:

“We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.” (Article of Faith IV)

What that means: the denomination don’t necessarily say that every word was exactly from the lips of God (i.e., don’t endorse some sort of “divine dictation” theory), and believes that any inexactness in language or dating or description does not take away from the inspiration of the overall message of Scripture. I, for instance, don’t care if there were 2 or 200 angels at the Empty Tomb. I just care that it was empty!
 
Lokabrenna said:
Hi, non-Christian here, but I thought I’d add my opinion on the matter.

I think it’s possible to derive meaning from a work while being skeptical of that work. I think that one of the problems with biblical inerrancy is when some people insist on treating it like a science textbook when it was written in an age when people didn’t have the tools or the understanding that we have in this day and age.

Perhaps it’s because I come from a tradition that doesn’t have “sacred texts” but I think that sometimes this obsession over biblical inerrancy borders on bibliolatry, and while books are awesome, I think there’s a real problem when you let reverence for a book eclipse your reverence for God.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
 
Hi Traverse,

I am going to send you an article (too long to post here) that might help you read the Bible with a more open mind, and a more open heart.

2 Cor 13:13
Eddy Barry
 
The bible is inerrant in the principles that it teaches. As is the case with prophecy and parables, the bible teaches principle rather than precision. However, the bible (or any text) must be interpreted by someone with the authority to interpret. Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-40 reveal this. Ultimately, Jesus founded a Church (Matthew 16) with the authority to settle all matters (Matthew 18:17). That Church, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), existed and fiunctioned for at least two decades before a single jot of NT scripture was written. In Acts 15:1-30, we see the authoreirty of the Church being exercised at the first council of Jerusalem. There was zero scripture to consult to address this matter of the corcumcision. But, the “Apostles and ancients” had two things to go on: the authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit.
 
Lokabrenna said:
Hi, non-Christian here, but I thought I’d add my opinion on the matter.

I think it’s possible to derive meaning from a work while being skeptical of that work. I think that one of the problems with biblical inerrancy is when some people insist on treating it like a science textbook when it was written in an age when people didn’t have the tools or the understanding that we have in this day and age.

Perhaps it’s because I come from a tradition that doesn’t have “sacred texts” but I think that sometimes this obsession over biblical inerrancy borders on bibliolatry, and while books are awesome, I think there’s a real problem when you let reverence for a book eclipse your reverence for God.
Click to expand...
You have analyzed this very well. The bible is not a science book and we do it no favor by treating it as one. The first thing that we know about any science book is that it is obsolete in 10 years. The message of the bible lasts as long as eternity does. Yet the mystery of God is far greater than, but yet parallels the mystery of that which science seeks to know.

As well, those who claim that the bible is some type of “authority” are anthropomorphizing an inanimate object. Indeed there is danger of idolatry by ascribing human or divine traits to a book. The bible was produced under authority, and speaks of and from authority, but cannot be, by itself, an authority.
 
Marie_Gregg said:
I think that being staunchly for or against the Bible’s inerrancy is to take the text out of proper boundaries of interpretation. For example, when looking at the Pauline Epistles, it’s important to remember that these were occasional letters, written in response to specific situations. There is thus both “cultural” and “timeless” truth contained within.

I like the stance the Church of the Nazarene takes:

“We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.” (Article of Faith IV)

What that means: the denomination don’t necessarily say that every word was exactly from the lips of God (i.e., don’t endorse some sort of “divine dictation” theory), and believes that any inexactness in language or dating or description does not take away from the inspiration of the overall message of Scripture. I, for instance, don’t care if there were 2 or 200 angels at the Empty Tomb. I just care that it was empty!
Click to expand...
Where did the number 66 come from?
 
I appreciate all the comments in this thread.

I’d like to add, however, that this thread is NOT about the validity of sola scriptura. It’s about the reliability of the bible as the word of God.
 
When the bible helps the Catholic argument they say trust the bible , when its conflicts they say trust tradition.
🙂
 
TraditonRules said:
When the bible helps the Catholic argument they say trust the bible , when its conflicts they say trust tradition.
🙂
Click to expand...
It never conflicts, when properly interpreted by the Church whose members wrote it. Is it just possible that you do not completely understand either the bible or Catholicism?
 
Like any book, the Bible must have an authentic and authoritative interpreter. As proof, just look at the many thousands of Protestant denominations who have contradictory doctrines derived from personal interpretation of the Bible. For example, the Baptists say that infant Baptism is not valid. The Lutherans and Anglicans, though, say it is. They all use the same Bible, and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation, but hold contrary doctrines about the same thing. The truth cannot contradict itself.

When Jesus walked the earth, He taught orally. He never sat down and wrote a book, and as far as we know, He never told anyone else to do the same. The Bible itself says that not all that Jesus did or taught is in the Bible (see John 21:25). Yet, Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach “all” that He had taught them. (see Matt. 28:20) So, if they had to teach “all,” but “all” wasn’t in the Bible, where was the rest? In Oral Tradition (a.k.a., Sacred Tradition), which is the oral teachings of Christ, passed on to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops for almost 2000 years now. St. Paul talks about oral tradition in 2 Thes 2:15. Plus, the Bible wasn’t assembled till the fourth century, and the vast majority of earth’s population was illiterate for the first 19 centuries of Christianity. So, a Bible-reading Church wouldn’t have made sense. Also, St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture. (See 2 Peter 1:20).
 
Traverse said:
I appreciate all the comments in this thread.

I’d like to add, however, that this thread is NOT about the validity of sola scriptura. It’s about the reliability of the bible as the word of God.
Click to expand...
On its face, it appears to have numerous errors. It must be interpreted so that what appear to be errors may be seen as inerrancy. Yet, it cannot be separated from a doctrine that places the individual ego as interpreter of God’s word. And yes, this is uncomfortable ground for those outside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top