Is the bible inerrant?

[po18guy]

All the more reason to understand that Luther’s problems were not simply a dispute with Rome. He, when translating, was already not in communion with Rome, and yet he still kept the DC’s in his translation. He didn’t have to by that time.

And of course, we can’t know how Eusebius would have responded to Rome and Carthage, much less Trent. Further, I don’t think the canon is quite the issue with lutheranism as it is with other communions that are non-Catholic.

Jon

How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?

 

[JonNC]

How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?

Mainly, ISTM, because western non-catholic Christians have little contact with them or knowledge of them. And I agree with you that, first, it is not the work of the SPirit that divides, and second, that to be anti-Catholic is to be anti our siblings in Christ.

Jon

 

[onemangang]

iT IS LATE FOR ME AND MY BRAIN IS HARDLY WORKING.

OT: The Masoretic Text (Jewish OT) was transcribed in circa 500 AD. More recent finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls written circa 500 BC proved the Masoretic Text, written 1000 years later, was word for word identical with the Masoretic Text in more than 95% of the Text. the 5% of variation consisted mostly of obvious slips of the pen and variations of spelling.

In the book “When Skeptics Ask”, by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, was there any mention of the deuterocanonical books? The books Protestants removed from the bible, that are in, both Catholic, and Orthodox bibles today?

The Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). And what about the deuterocanonical book of Baruch, it was found in Qumran in Greek!

st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html

The New Testament evidence is overwhelming, There are about 5,370 manuscripts available today to compare and draw conclusions from.

The questionable verses in our current Bible are:

John 1:21 “Who are you then: are you Elijah.” There are 5 possible arrangements of these words.

1 John 5:7 Only 1 manuscript out of 1,520 manuscripts of the Gospel Of John that have these words.

John 7:53 - 8:11 All early manuscripts, translations, and the early Church Fathers writings omit this passage in John. Even those later manuscripts that do have it place it in 4 different places in John.

Mark’s Gospel 16: 9-20, is most likely a later add on. The original of the ending of Marks’ gospel is uncertain.

The Remainder of the NT is sound based upon the manuscripts we do have.

But even if we found no NT manuscripts at all, we can reconstruct the entire NT from quotes of the various New Testament in Greek from the quotes of the early Church Fathers of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century writings, except for eleven verses from 2 and 3 John.

In contrast, There are only 10 copies of Julius Caesar’s GALLIC WARS, and no one doubts it, even though the earliest dates 1000 years after the original was written.

The above information came primarily from Christian Scholars: Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks "When Skeptics Ask’.

I think it would have been better stated “The questionable verses in our current N.T. are” Rather than “The questionable verses in our current our bible are!” there are some discrepancies in the O.T. as well.

Do our books today contain errors? Yes! The Bible may contain errors due to copyists, translators, editors, and printers! I believe he Catholic Church position on the inerrancy of Scripture, lies within the original manuscripts given by divine revelation!

Peace and Love in Christ

 

[Curious_Seed]

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.

Is the Bible inerrant ?

Well, may I reverently suggest you are amply unqualified to answer that question, with any modicum of authority.

You would not, nor I, dare to determine the correctness of a textbook on medicine, or law, or history, or otherwise.

So, what leads you to make an exception of the Bible ?

First, and most evidently, the Bible is a canon of books - what do you know of the what and why of that which was included and excluded ?

Secondly, what of the wherewithal wilds found in and through language ?

Are you fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ?

English came from Erasmus’ Latin; and what do you know of Latin.

Indeed, how competent are you in English.

Thirdly, what were and what are, the ways of history ?

Do you know the confluence of thinkers and events, in the final bringing of the Bible to press ?

So, until one is willing to devote plenty of time and thought toward all of that - one is, kidnapped by one’s own ignorance.

No less as one is held captive, if in need of a doctor, lawyer, or mechanic.

So, knowing we are unlikely to qualify ourselves to give satisfactory personal analysis on the inerrancy of the Bible, what are we to do ?

We are to trust in a Church that is qualified to give judgment.

Which begs the question, which Church ?

A tough question, certainly, but answerable - unlike that of the inerrancy of the Bible, for you, me, and probably everyone else, in the Forum.

 

[onemangang]

How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?

Your statement is something I dealt with in a “non-denominational Evangelical” community, more specifically, with Calvary Chapel. This is from there home page under What we believe.

We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.

Sounds nice, but talk to many of them about Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Anglicans, and they will commence to bashing. Interestingly enough, all the “faults” they point out in those aforementioned Traditions, are the seemingly Catholic Traditions. Infant baptism, structured Liturgy, Ecclesiastical polity, Eucharistic Confection, Stained glass windows, Stations of the Cross, the sign of the Cross, Vestments and anything else that smacks of the Catholic Church.

It’s almost like a drive by shooting on the Catholic Church, those that are standing a bit close, get caught in the crossfire unintentionally!

As for why do the Eastern Orthodox get a pass? I can tell you from experience that some in the Calvary Chapel crowd, don’t even know what the Eastern Orthodox church is. When I left Calvary Chapel I told a few people that my theology has grown to be very E.O, some thought I was becoming some sort of Hindu The first question posed to me was rhetorical of course, it was “So, you don’t believe in the bible brother?”

Sorry to go off thread for a moment, but if you point out some errors in the bible we have today, some of these people think that you have somehow apostatized.

 

[GaryTaylor]

How right you are. An awful lot of Christian division today seems to be driven by pure anti-Catholicism - but it is becoming anti-Lutheran as well! This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

And, how come the Orthodox get a pass from our misguided brothers?

Actually they don’t when the topic in specific comes up. I have heard those who worship the Bible lump all the Apostolic Churchs in one pot.

Amazing spectacle to view really. They walk around a stage and hold that Bible as if God himself handed it to them.

From this perspective its impossible to give authority to any Tradition. For the result is to undermine your own.

Hence we have GODS WORD worshipped but interpreted as private revelation to who-ever happens to be preaching the word.

I’m facinated how a couple verse’s are taken, then affirmed by what God specifically revealed to the preacher in person about those specific verse’s.

Quasi unaminous testimony of the ECFs is what the Bible is. Thus the Sacred Tradition of the Church which proceeded from Jesus to the Apostles thus[Church] and then…to the Bible. And so the History went.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Actually they don’t when the topic in specific comes up. I have heard those who worship the Bible lump all the Apostolic Churchs in one pot.

Amazing spectacle to view really. They walk around a stage and hold that Bible as if God himself handed it to them.

From this perspective its impossible to give authority to any Tradition. For the result is to undermine your own.

Hence we have GODS WORD worshipped but interpreted as private revelation to who-ever happens to be preaching the word.

I’m facinated how a couple verse’s are taken, then affirmed by what God specifically revealed to the preacher in person about those specific verse’s.

Quasi unaminous testimony of the ECFs is what the Bible is. Thus the Sacred Tradition of the Church which proceeded from Jesus to the Apostles thus[Church] and then…to the Bible. And so the History went.

So sad to see so much infighting within the Christian community of believers.

Catholics smugly badmouth Protestants for their worship of the Bible, to the exclusion of Tradition; Protestants smugly badmouth Catholics for their worship of Tradition, to the exclusion of the Bible.

Of course, I overly extend my point, but really, the wide measure to which it is true is so very sad.

Both act as if the other were Satan possessed; the Deceiver must be smiling.

Could Catholics and Protestants not embrace each other, as cousins in Christ who champion Matthew 16:16, and get on with evangelizing those in need of God, according to Mark 16:15 - to those who know not the Bible, Tradition, or Christ.

 

[1voice]

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.

My view is that the entire focus of the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Various writers wrote of events in the New Testament from their point of view. The specific/minor details of their accounts may differ simply based on their personal experience. That in no way negates the inerrancy of the story or the central purpose of the narrative. What I have seen is that some people would pan the entire Bible based on the narrative written from different perspectives. That sort of logic would mean that almost every court testimony would be worthless.

 

[batman1973]

This can be a slippery slope if people start saying only certain parts of the bible are inerrant. To do this you risk something like this:
“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”-Joseph Smith, Jr. (and we all know what happened with that)

 

[Calgar]

It is inerrant.

If a person believes that even one sentence is incorrect, how can they believe any of it?

 

[SteveVH]

My view is that the entire focus of the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Various writers wrote of events in the New Testament from their point of view. The specific/minor details of their accounts may differ simply based on their personal experience. That in no way negates the inerrancy of the story or the central purpose of the narrative. What I have seen is that some people would pan the entire Bible based on the narrative written from different perspectives. That sort of logic would mean that almost every court testimony would be worthless.

I couldn’t agree more. The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. Even the same person may explain a truth differently depending upon his audience. Two people will have a different perspective of the same event yet still speak the truth about that event.

 

[JonNC]

Sounds nice, but talk to many of them about Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Anglicans, and they will commence to bashing. Interestingly enough, all the “faults” they point out in those aforementioned Traditions, are the seemingly Catholic Traditions. Infant baptism, structured Liturgy, Ecclesiastical polity, Eucharistic Confection, Stained glass windows, Stations of the Cross, the sign of the Cross, Vestments and anything else that smacks of the Catholic Church.

It’s almost like a drive by shooting on the Catholic Church, those that are standing a bit close, get caught in the crossfire unintentionally!

Probably not so unintentional as one might think.

Jon

 

[Marie_Gregg]

My point is that Jesus was and is a Jew, born of a Jewess, raised under Jewish law, and sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The early Church was Jewish. All of the Apostles were. The 120 in the upper room were. The 3,000 added at Pentecost were. The Church was founded by a Jew for the Jews.

The fact that it has become majority gentile does not mean that Jewish history is now a separate thing, and off-limits to the Church that a Jew founded on behalf of Israel. See what I mean? It is one, continuous history, not Christians vs. Jews.

There is every reason to believe that the Jewish “canon”, a response to the rise of Christianity, was steered toward books and doctrines that supported their rejection of Jesus.

Knowing, or even suspecting this, why then go to those who reject Jesus in order to obtain from them the writings that you hope will point to Him? That is what makes no sense.

Been gone for a few days…

I don’t know how to do mutli-quote, so let me just say that I track with you right up until you say that the formation of the Jewish canon, in response to the rise of Christianity, was biased toward a rejection of Jesus. I’d say that we’d have a huge problem if this is true. All of the OT passages quoted in the NT are available for us to read today. So, either the NT writers also (and I hate to even use this word) manipulated the OT text to their own ends or the Holy Spirit was indeed involved in the Jewish formation of the OT.

You are totally right in saying that this isn’t about Christians vs. Jews. I for one wish that all Christians would be taught to appreciate their Jewish roots.

 

[po18guy]

Been gone for a few days…

I don’t know how to do mutli-quote, so let me just say that I track with you right up until you say that the formation of the Jewish canon, in response to the rise of Christianity, was biased toward a rejection of Jesus. I’d say that we’d have a huge problem if this is true. All of the OT passages quoted in the NT are available for us to read today. So, either the NT writers also (and I hate to even use this word) manipulated the OT text to their own ends or the Holy Spirit was indeed involved in the Jewish formation of the OT.

You are totally right in saying that this isn’t about Christians vs. Jews. I for one wish that all Christians would be taught to appreciate their Jewish roots.

The Jewish canon occurred in the time frame that surrounds Christ. I fail to see how it could not have been affected by their rejection of Jesus, since all scripture, in some way, points to Him. Some Jews still do not hold to the prophets. Judaism is not as fractured as Christianity, but it is fractured. As well, all writings in the Catholic canon have been in use since the first days of the Church. Not all were in all areas of the Church - simply because it was the ancient world, but all were in use. I hear far better arguments for their inclusion than I do for their exclusion.

 

[Marie_Gregg]

The Jewish canon occurred in the time frame that surrounds Christ. I fail to see how it could not have been affected by their rejection of Jesus, since all scripture, in some way, points to Him. Some Jews still do not hold to the prophets. Judaism is not as fractured as Christianity, but it is fractured. As well, all writings in the Catholic canon have been in use since the first days of the Church. Not all were in all areas of the Church - simply because it was the ancient world, but all were in use. I hear far better arguments for their inclusion than I do for their exclusion.

I think I’m confused. I think we’re talking about different things. Too bad we can’t meet face-to-face and have some coffee.

BTW, I’ve made it my goal to read the Deuterocanonicals sooner rather than later. They’re on my Amazon wishlist.

 

[po18guy]

I think I’m confused. I think we’re talking about different things. Too bad we can’t meet face-to-face and have some coffee.

BTW, I’ve made it my goal to read the Deuterocanonicals sooner rather than later. They’re on my Amazon wishlist.

Well, we are on both threads - this one and the “difference of 7 books” thread. I am wondering myself…

 

[Marocchino]

The Bible is absolutely innerant. There are no errors of facts at all. For sound Catholic hermeneutical principles, refer to Providentissimus deus (Leo XIII), the replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (ratified by St Pius X), Spiritus paraclitus (Benedict XV), Divino afflante spiritu (Pius XII), and Dei verbum (Vatican II).

Asserting that the Bible contains scientific and historical errors is a Modernist misinterpretation of Dei verbum 11, is heretical, and is an affront to God (since it attributes to the Holy Spirit an officious lie).

Thank God for His innerant, infallible, inspired written Word, preserved from any error for the sake of our salvation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Bible is absolutely innerant. Thank God for His innerant, infallible, inspired written Word, preserved from any error for the sake of our salvation.

AMEN!

And who preservered this innerant Bible? Ah that would be the ECFs of the Catholic Church in agreement thus the canons. And all this while the Church/Eucharist was in operation, amazing history really. Oh…and then came the Bible.

The New Covenant of the NT is the Eucharist. Matthew 14:24 - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

And he said unto them,… Not after they had drank of it, but before, and as he gave it to them: this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many; in Matthew it is added, “for the remission of sins”;

And for 2000 year that has been what? Perhaps those ECFs who were in total agreement on this inerrant Bible were wrong about this???

Peace

 

[karaleigh]

Judaism is not as fractured as Christianity, but it is fractured. As well, all writings in the Catholic canon have been in use since the first days of the Church.

It’s not Christianity that is fractured, but the multi-secularism church organizations that are damaged. Church developments steming from the concepts of Jesus are to blame if things seem muddled in Christian worships not Jesus’s words.
:sad_yes:

 

[Publisher]

Been gone for a few days…

I don’t know how to do mutli-quote, so let me just say that I track with you right up until you say that the formation of the Jewish canon, in response to the rise of Christianity, was biased toward a rejection of Jesus. I’d say that we’d have a huge problem if this is true. All of the OT passages quoted in the NT are available for us to read today. So, either the NT writers also (and I hate to even use this word) manipulated the OT text to their own ends or the Holy Spirit was indeed involved in the Jewish formation of the OT.

You are totally right in saying that this isn’t about Christians vs. Jews. I for one wish that all Christians would be taught to appreciate their Jewish roots.

The rise of the Jewish canon most likely was a reaction of the rise of Christianity…Christians used the LXX…which did have the apoc/duetro books and some of the imagery used in these books did have an influence on the the development of the Christian story…after the destruction of the Temple…Pharisee Judaism became the dominant form of Judaism…the “rabbinical” movement began with the Pharisees as they were not as invested in the temple sacrificial cult as were the Saduceees…the leaders of Judaism came from the Pharisee tradition…not Saducees…the rise of the synagouges was Pharisee led as was the rabbinic traditions which arose.

The Jewish canon accepted those books specifically Hebrew/Jewish…not necessarily those predominantly from the Diaspora…Hellenistic…Greek Hellenist Jewish influenced writings were rejected…and from my readings part of the reason the apoc/duet was rejected was the struggle between the Pharisees and Christians for the “legitimate” successor of Judaism…both were claiming to be the “authentic” representatives of Judaism.