Academic Inerrancy, Practical Errancy: Does Inerrancy Matter in Practice?

[TB2]

1. The Doctrine of Inerrancy states that only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.

2. No one today or in the past has a 100% perfectly inerrant Bible in their hands. We do not have the original autographs. Even in Jesus's day the OT textual tradition was not yet fixed and there were different textual variants and translations. We even see this in the NT, where about two-thirds of OT citations are from the Septuagint (LXX) (Greek translation of the OT), which doesn't always agree with the Hebrew OT. No two NT manuscripts are perfectly identical. Bible translations are themselves uninspired *interpretations* (Bible translations require translators to make assumptions and decisions about what a given passage means. Bible translations are *interpretations*).

3. The gospel message has not been adversely affected either way. Today, we are fortunate to have thousands of NT manuscripts to reconstruct the original text with 99% accuracy. But what about all the Christians in the past who didn't have all these manuscripts available to them to compare, but who had maybe one to a handful, and whatever they had they were stuck with, even if it was riddled with errors.

4. The point is it didn't seem to matter. It didn't affect the gospel message. And God doesn't seem concerned or to care that no one has an inerrant copy of the Bible in their hands. So how important is the doctrine of inerrancy in reality? In practice? Does it have any practical relevance to us? Does it matter in practice? Is the doctrine merely academic?

 

[makesends]

1. The Doctrine of Inerrancy states that only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.

2. No one today or in the past has a 100% perfectly inerrant Bible in their hands. We do not have the original autographs. Even in Jesus's day the OT textual tradition was not yet fixed and there were different textual variants and translations. We even see this in the NT, where about two-thirds of OT citations are from the Septuagint (LXX) (Greek translation of the OT), which doesn't always agree with the Hebrew OT. No two NT manuscripts are perfectly identical. Bible translations are themselves uninspired *interpretations* (Bible translations require translators to make assumptions and decisions about what a given passage means. Bible translations are *interpretations*).

3. The gospel message has not been adversely affected either way. Today, we are fortunate to have thousands of NT manuscripts to reconstruct the original text with 99% accuracy. But what about all the Christians in the past who didn't have all these manuscripts available to them to compare, but who had maybe one to a handful, and whatever they had they were stuck with, even if it was riddled with errors.

4. The point is it didn't seem to matter. It didn't affect the gospel message. And God doesn't seem concerned or to care that no one has an inerrant copy of the Bible in their hands. So how important is the doctrine of inerrancy in reality? In practice? Does it have any practical relevance to us? Does it matter in practice? Is the doctrine merely academic?

It is very important. Look at the range of homemade speculative doctrines that spring up everywhere, and people living however they want, justifying themselves, and widespread false sayings and mentality —all as a result of the notion of the Bible not being quite the Word of God. but rather, Great Literature, or Inspirational Literature.

It is roughly analogous to the teaching of Christ as being an Inspiration Character, or Great Teacher, or Compelling Example, but not being God the Son of God, and our Salvation, and our very Life.

You say, "It didn't affect the gospel message." It didn't affect the Gospel, I expect you mean. But it did affect the message, it had to have. The true Gospel has always been the same, and God can get it across to whomever he chooses, even within the perversions of it. Truth is, unless we are quoting Scripture, our Gospel message is never pure, and even when quoting, it is never purely received, if for no other reason than that we are short of knowledge, and biased, and so on.

 

[TB2]

It is very important. Look at the range of homemade speculative doctrines that spring up everywhere, and people living however they want, justifying themselves, and widespread false sayings and mentality —all as a result of the notion of the Bible not being quite the Word of God. but rather, Great Literature, or Inspirational Literature.

It is roughly analogous to the teaching of Christ as being an Inspiration Character, or Great Teacher, or Compelling Example, but not being God the Son of God, and our Salvation, and our very Life.

You say, "It didn't affect the gospel message." It didn't affect the Gospel, I expect you mean. But it did affect the message, it had to have. The true Gospel has always been the same, and God can get it across to whomever he chooses, even within the perversions of it. Truth is, unless we are quoting Scripture, our Gospel message is never pure, and even when quoting, it is never purely received, if for no other reason than that we are short of knowledge, and biased, and so on.

The gospel message predated the completed Bible by centuries. My point is that it doesn't seem to matter in any practical way to us today, because no one has an error free Bible in their hands. That still doesn't mean we're free to make things up or misinterpret (I absolutely agree with you on that).

 

[makesends]

The gospel message predated the completed Bible by centuries. My point is that it doesn't seem to matter in any practical way to us today, because no one has an error free Bible in their hands. That still doesn't mean we're free to make things up or misinterpret (I absolutely agree with you on that).

"Extremely accurate" is not the same thing as "Error free", but it is also not the same thing as "Chaotic". It is very sensible and right, to assume when studying the Bible, that it is not an error-free translation of non-original manuscripts.

But is very practical to understand that the originals were verbal plenary inspired —that is, that they were of divine origin and were therefore fully authoritative. What we have in our hands is very close to the originals, and therefore, cannot be discarded for corrupt, because of its importance.

To me, the notion that "it doesn't seem to matter in any practical way to us today" to me is absurd.

 

[TB2]

"Extremely accurate" is not the same thing as "Error free", but it is also not the same thing as "Chaotic". It is very sensible and right, to assume when studying the Bible, that it is not an error-free translation of non-original manuscripts.

But is very practical to understand that the originals were verbal plenary inspired —that is, that they were of divine origin and were therefore fully authoritative. What we have in our hands is very close to the originals, and therefore, cannot be discarded for corrupt, because of its importance.

To me, the notion that "it doesn't seem to matter in any practical way to us today" to me is absurd.

I don't think there's a single thing you said that I disagree with. I pretty much agree with you completely. Yes, absolutely, the Bible is very close to the originals. At least, the NT is (99%). We're less sure about the OT. But 99% is not 100% inerrant, error free is it? I didn't say the Bible's not trustworthy or authoritative. It is. My point is insistence on the original autographs not having a single mistake doesn't really help us is any practical way today when no one has an error free Bible in their hands. So how does insisting we affirm the doctrine as a shibboleth standard that we're "in" the kingdom really matter in practice?

 

[TB2]

To me, the notion that "it doesn't seem to matter in any practical way to us today" to me is absurd.

The Bible certainly does matter! It is our ultimate written authority. But does affirming the doctrine of inerrancy that the original autographs (we don't have) are error free matter in any practical way when no one has a perfectly 100% inerrant copy of the Bible in their hands today?;

 

[makesends]

I don't think there's a single thing you said that I disagree with. I pretty much agree with you completely. Yes, absolutely, the Bible is very close to the originals. At least, the NT is (99%). We're less sure about the OT. But 99% is not 100% inerrant, error free is it? I didn't say the Bible's not trustworthy or authoritative. It is. My point is insistence on the original autographs not having a single mistake doesn't really help us is any practical way today when no one has an error free Bible in their hands. So how does insisting we affirm the doctrine as a shibboleth standard that we're "in" the kingdom really matter in practice?

The insistence on the original autographs being error free IS the basis for the authority of the current texts.

 

[Eleanor]

1. The Doctrine of Inerrancy states that only the original autographs are inspired and inerrant.

2. No one today or in the past has a 100% perfectly inerrant Bible in their hands. We do not have the original autographs. Even in Jesus's day the OT textual tradition was not yet fixed and there were different textual variants and translations. We even see this in the NT, where about two-thirds of OT citations are from the Septuagint (LXX) (Greek translation of the OT), which doesn't always agree with the Hebrew OT. No two NT manuscripts are perfectly identical. Bible translations are themselves uninspired *interpretations* (Bible translations require translators to make assumptions and decisions about what a given passage means. Bible translations are *interpretations*).

That is a misleading statement.

3. The gospel message has not been adversely affected either way. Today, we are fortunate to have thousands of NT manuscripts to reconstruct the original text with 99% accuracy. But what about all the Christians in the past who didn't have all these manuscripts available to them to compare, but who had maybe one to a handful, and whatever they had they were stuck with, even if it was riddled with errors.

4. The point is it didn't seem to matter. It didn't affect the gospel message. And God doesn't seem concerned or to care that no one has an inerrant copy of the Bible in their hands. So how important is the doctrine of inerrancy in reality? In practice? Does it have any practical relevance to us? Does it matter in practice? Is the doctrine merely academic?

It matters if it is authoritative.

It matters if error in some way contradicts the gospel of salvation through faith, not by works.
And there are many ways to get that wrong.

It matters if some error causes anyone to look to their own merit to get them to heaven, meaning they are doing religion, not the gospel.

Etc.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't think there's a single thing you said that I disagree with. I pretty much agree with you completely. Yes, absolutely, the Bible is very close to the originals. At least, the NT is (99%). We're less sure about the OT. But 99% is not 100% inerrant, error free is it? I didn't say the Bible's not trustworthy or authoritative. It is. My point is insistence on the original autographs not having a single mistake doesn't really help us is any practical way today when no one has an error free Bible in their hands. So how does insisting we affirm the doctrine as a shibboleth standard that we're "in" the kingdom really matter in practice?

Well, that we are in the kingdom now (Lk 11:20, Mt 12:28) refutes any notion of another kingdom, with another purpose in contradiction to his purpose of the kingdom now.
It removes the distraction of a focus other than God's focus for his only kingdom now, which focus necessarily minimizes God's real purpose in this kingdom now, in some cases relegating his purpose for this one and only kingdom now to merely an incidental occurrence in time.
In so doing, it robs God of his glory through the glory of his Son in the redemption of the saved, his glory in the body of Christ which is the spouse of Christ in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32) and co-heir in the Son's own inheritance.

It is a complete up-ending of God's purpose in the church, which goes all the way back to Abraham, presented as the one olive tree of God's people in which all his purposes are accomplished, replacing that purpose with a second purpose which enjoys no support in NT apostolic teaching, which is authoritative to the church, and in the process doing much damage to the church in its relegation of it to a secondary status.

And not understanding the above is testimony to what I am referring.

 

[makesends]

If they are not error free, how can they be considered God's Word? No?

 

[makesends]

I don't think there's a single thing you said that I disagree with. I pretty much agree with you completely. Yes, absolutely, the Bible is very close to the originals. At least, the NT is (99%). We're less sure about the OT. But 99% is not 100% inerrant, error free is it? I didn't say the Bible's not trustworthy or authoritative. It is. My point is insistence on the original autographs not having a single mistake doesn't really help us is any practical way today when no one has an error free Bible in their hands. So how does insisting we affirm the doctrine as a shibboleth standard that we're "in" the kingdom really matter in practice?

In reading this of yours, again, I see I might have missed a change of direction from you. Your last sentence, "So how does insisting we affirm the doctrine as a shibboleth standard that we're "in" the kingdom really matter in practice?" —I'm wondering if you mean to ask if someone doesn't insist on or even believe in plenary verbal inspiration, is that our basis to judge whether that person is saved? No, it is not a cardinal doctrine. A person can be saved, not knowing the Bible is the inspired word of God, or even having heard that it was true, rejecting the notion. How they can continue rejecting the notion, I don't know, but I am certain they can belong to Christ.

 

[TB2]

The insistence on the original autographs being error free IS the basis for the authority of the current texts.

Not canonically. That was not the "ruler" used to determine which books are canonical

 

[TB2]

That is a misleading statement.

It matters if it is authoritative.

It matters if error in some way contradicts the gospel of salvation through faith, not by works.
And there are many ways to get that wrong.

It matters if some error causes anyone to look to their own merit to get them to heaven, meaning they are doing religion, not the gospel.

Etc.

Yes, that's what I'm seeing too. No one has an inerrant copy of the Bible, but that doesn't change the gospel. No one has a perfect Bible copy but those imperfect copies don't affect the central, foundational gospel message

 

[TB2]

That is a misleading statement.

Care to expound?

 

[TB2]

In reading this of yours, again, I see I might have missed a change of direction from you. Your last sentence, "So how does insisting we affirm the doctrine as a shibboleth standard that we're "in" the kingdom really matter in practice?" —I'm wondering if you mean to ask if someone doesn't insist on or even believe in plenary verbal inspiration, is that our basis to judge whether that person is saved? No, it is not a cardinal doctrine. A person can be saved, not knowing the Bible is the inspired word of God, or even having heard that it was true, rejecting the notion. How they can continue rejecting the notion, I don't know, but I am certain they can belong to Christ.

Yes, I agree. My biggest concern is not whether someone believes in inerrancy or not, but the insistence that one must believe it to be a "true Christian." Or, "you can still be saved, but you're less of a Christian"-type thing.

And I don't quite know how to fully articulate it, because Scripture obviously is important and our ultimate written authority so this is an important issue, but yet I find myself wondering (not just on this but *anything* that comes later in church history) if we're needlessly adding more traditions and doctrines (since the early church) that needlessly complicate things and detract from "Christ crucified" that Paul resolved to know. The gospel message was *the* end-all-be-all in the early church (and centuries before we had the completed Bible). Isn't that what we should always be going back to? Have we (believers throughout history) kept adding more and more "hoops" for people to jump through?

 

[makesends]

Not canonically. That was not the "ruler" used to determine which books are canonical

I wasn't referring to how the canon was decided.

 

[makesends]

Yes, I agree. My biggest concern is not whether someone believes in inerrancy or not, but the insistence that one must believe it to be a "true Christian." Or, "you can still be saved, but you're less of a Christian"-type thing.

And I don't quite know how to fully articulate it, because Scripture obviously is important and our ultimate written authority so this is an important issue, but yet I find myself wondering (not just on this but *anything* that comes later in church history) if we're needlessly adding more traditions and doctrines (since the early church) that needlessly complicate things and detract from "Christ crucified" that Paul resolved to know. The gospel message was *the* end-all-be-all in the early church (and centuries before we had the completed Bible). Isn't that what we should always be going back to? Have we (believers throughout history) kept adding more and more "hoops" for people to jump through?

I guess you'll have to decide for yourself what Scripture means by "God-breathed", and the other references to the source and delivery of Scripture.

 

[makesends]

Yes, that's what I'm seeing too. No one has an inerrant copy of the Bible, but that doesn't change the gospel. No one has a perfect Bible copy but those imperfect copies don't affect the central, foundational gospel message

FWIW, there are several things that happen with any error. You say it doesn't change the gospel; I'm not sure that is so, because any error changes everything.

Some say that a person's sin is between that person and God, and nobody else. But the Bible talks about the Body as a whole of many members. If one member is not in unity with God, the rest suffer in one way or another as a result. The understanding of the Gospel works the same way. Every word articulated introduces truth or falsehood. God can get the basics across, and an adulterated Gospel may still contain the essence, but not the fullness.

 

[TB2]

I wasn't referring to how the canon was decided.

I know, but my point was that inerrant autographs was not what made Scripture authoritative. The criteria used in the canonical process helped establish the authority based on numerous criteria. For example, certain NT books were accepted as authoritative if written or associated with the original apostles.

 

[TB2]

I guess you'll have to decide for yourself what Scripture means by "God-breathed", and the other references to the source and delivery of Scripture.

It still means God-inspired, yes?