Inerrancy

[Dave_Regenerated]

Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would like some feedback and opinion on this Wikipedia article.

 

[civic]

I don't see anything that jumps out as wrong, do you ?

Do you agree with this from Got ?

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because the truth does matter. This issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. Here are some reasons why we should absolutely believe in biblical inerrancy:

1. The Bible itself claims to be perfect. “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5 KJV). These claims of purity and perfection are absolute statements. Note that it doesn’t say God’s Word is “mostly” pure or scripture is “nearly” perfect. The Bible argues for complete perfection, leaving no room for “partial perfection” theories.

2. The Bible stands or falls as a whole. If a major newspaper were routinely discovered to contain errors, it would be quickly discredited. It would make no difference to say, “All the errors are confined to page three.” For a paper to be reliable in any of its parts, it must be factual throughout. In the same way, if the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of geology, why should its theology be trusted? It is either a trustworthy document, or it is not.

3. The Bible is a reflection of its Author. All books are. The Bible was written by God Himself as He worked through human authors in a process called “inspiration.” “All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). See also 2 Peter 1:21 and Jeremiah 1:2.

We believe that the God who created the universe is capable of writing a book. And the God who is perfect is capable of writing a perfect book. The issue is not simply “Does the Bible have a mistake?” but “Can God make a mistake?” If the Bible contains factual errors, then God is not omniscient and is capable of making errors Himself. If the Bible contains misinformation, then God is not truthful but is instead a liar. If the Bible contains contradictions, then God is the author of confusion. In other words, if biblical inerrancy is not true, then God is not God.

4. The Bible judges us, not vice versa. “For the word of God...judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Notice the relationship between “the heart” and “the Word.” The Word examines; the heart is being examined. To discount parts of the Word for any reason is to reverse this process. We become the examiners, and the Word must submit to our “superior insight.” Yet God says, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” (Romans 9:20).

5. The Bible’s message must be taken as a whole. It is not a mixture of doctrine that we are free to select from. Many people like the verses that say God loves them, but they dislike the verses that say God will judge sinners. But we simply cannot pick and choose what we like about the Bible and throw the rest away. If the Bible is wrong about hell, for example, then who is to say it is right about heaven—or about anything else? If the Bible cannot get the details right about creation, then maybe the details about salvation cannot be trusted either. If the story of Jonah is a myth, then perhaps so is the story of Jesus. On the contrary, God has said what He has said, and the Bible presents us a full picture of who God is. “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

6. The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice. If it is not reliable, then on what do we base our beliefs? Jesus asks for our trust, and that includes trust in what He says in His Word. John 6:67-69 is a beautiful passage. Jesus had just witnessed the departure of many who had claimed to follow Him. Then He turns to the twelve apostles and asks, “You do not want to leave too, do you?” At this, Peter speaks for the rest when he says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” May we have the same trust in the Lord and in His words of life.

None of what we have presented here should be taken as a rejection of true scholarship. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that we are to stop using our minds or accept what the Bible says blindly. We are commanded to study the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), and those who search it out are commended (Acts 17:11). Also, we recognize that there are difficult passages in the Bible, as well as sincere disagreements over interpretation. Our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we do not understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I think engaging with the points made in the Wiki article is what I am looking for here.

 

[civic]

I think engaging with the points made in the Wiki article is what I am looking for here.

I find nothing wrong with them. Can you quote one you have a question about ?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I find nothing wrong with them. Can you quote one you have a question about ?

I find almost all of it to challenge the idea of Biblical inerrancy. So pick one.

 

[civic]

I find almost all of it to challenge the idea of Biblical inerrancy. So pick one.

Divine authority[edit]​

For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.[53] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[54] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.[55] Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[56]

Sufficiency[edit]​

According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know to obtain salvation and live a Christian life,[57] and there are no deficiencies in scripture that need to be filled with tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[58]

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Divine authority[edit]​

For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.[53] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[54] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.[55] Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[56]

Sufficiency[edit]​

According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know to obtain salvation and live a Christian life,[57] and there are no deficiencies in scripture that need to be filled with tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[58]

I'm talking about the anti-inerrancy portions.

 

[civic]

I'm talking about the anti-inerrancy portions.

Then quote a specific one we can discuss .

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Then quote a specific one we can discuss .

Origen of Alexandria thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things" (Commentary on John 10.4).
Later, John Chrysostom was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith:

But if there be anything touching time or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said [...] [but those things] which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little
— Homily on Matthew 1.6

In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14[22] for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.[23]

 

[civic]

Origen of Alexandria thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things" (Commentary on John 10.4).
Later, John Chrysostom was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith:

In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14[22] for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.[23]

Those are just human reasonings and philosophy. Scripture is inerrant and infallible regardless of those outside of the inspiration of scripture who object. The Biblical writers affirmed inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency and the infallibility of Scripture.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Those are just human reasonings and philosophy. Scripture is inerrant and infallible regardless of those outside of the inspiration of scripture who object. The Biblical writers affirmed inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency and the infallibility of Scripture.

More

The Christian humanist and one of the leading scholars of the northern Renaissance, Erasmus (1466–1536), was also unconcerned with minor errors not impacting theology, and at one point, thought that Matthew mistook one word for another. In a letter to Johannes Eck, Erasmus wrote that "Nor, in my view, would the authority of the whole of Scripture be instantly imperiled, as you suggest, if an evangelist by a slip of memory did put one name for another, Isaiah for instance instead of Jeremiah, for this is not a point on which anything turns."[24]

The same point of view held true for John Calvin (1509–1564), who wrote that "It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences."[21]

Note: the footnote for [21] is buried in an obscure old book, and I couldn't find Calvin's quote on a Google search.

 

[civic]

More

The Christian humanist and one of the leading scholars of the northern Renaissance, Erasmus (1466–1536), was also unconcerned with minor errors not impacting theology, and at one point, thought that Matthew mistook one word for another. In a letter to Johannes Eck, Erasmus wrote that "Nor, in my view, would the authority of the whole of Scripture be instantly imperiled, as you suggest, if an evangelist by a slip of memory did put one name for another, Isaiah for instance instead of Jeremiah, for this is not a point on which anything turns."[24]

The same point of view held true for John Calvin (1509–1564), who wrote that "It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences."[21]

Note: the footnote for [21] is buried in an obscure old book, and I couldn't find Calvin's quote on a Google search.

See my previous post which applies to your above quote. you are dealing with uninspired and fallen men. God used fallen men and inspired by the Holy Spirit moved them to write His infallible and inerrant word. The quotes you are dealing with are just the opinions of man.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

See my previous post which applies to your above quote. you are dealing with uninspired and fallen men. God used fallen men and inspired by the Holy Spirit moved them to write His infallible and inerrant word. The quotes you are dealing with are just the opinions of man.

hope this helps !!!

At first when I read the Wiki article, I was suspicious because Wiki is known for bias in the area of the supernatural and religion. It seems that whoever wrote and edited this article tried their utmost best to smear the Bible except they actually failed because the quotes they dragged up are extremely weak arguments.

 

[David1701]

Those are just human reasonings and philosophy. Scripture is inerrant and infallible regardless of those outside of the inspiration of scripture who object. The Biblical writers affirmed inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency and the infallibility of Scripture.

Amen!

 

[donadams]

Divine authority[edit]​

For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.[53] Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.[54] Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.[55] Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.[56]

Sufficiency[edit]​

According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know to obtain salvation and live a Christian life,[57] and there are no deficiencies in scripture that need to be filled with tradition, pronouncements of the Pope, new revelations, or present-day development of doctrine.[58]

Then why did Christ found the new covenant church?

 

[TB2]

Origen of Alexandria thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things" (Commentary on John 10.4).
Later, John Chrysostom was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith:

In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14[22] for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.[23]

I think this part of the wiki article is important:

"According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy."[20] The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.[21]"

The strict absolutely 100% perfect American evangelical and fundamentalist brand of "inerrancy" is relatively new in church history, which begs the question as to its validity. This strict inerrancy view is not held as much outside of America.

More than anything, my greatest concern is if we're setting believers up for a fall with statements like 'if there's a single mistake throw your Bible out, you can't trust any of it and it's not from God.'

Because regardless of whether there is, what if a believer mistakenly believes there is? There are quite a few Christians who have turned atheist over a doctrine that is recent in church history, and not shared by many Christians outside America. Former Christians who lost confidence in the Bible like Bart Erhman. Would it be better to focus on the more central, fundamental issue of the resurrection?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I think this part of the wiki article is important:

"According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy."[20] The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.[21]"

The strict absolutely 100% perfect American evangelical and fundamentalist brand of "inerrancy" is relatively new in church history, which begs the question as to its validity. This strict inerrancy view is not held as much outside of America.

More than anything, my greatest concern is if we're setting believers up for a fall with statements like 'if there's a single mistake throw your Bible out, you can't trust any of it and it's not from God.'

Because regardless of whether there is, what if a believer mistakenly believes there is? There are quite a few Christians who have turned atheist over a doctrine that is recent in church history, and not shared by many Christians outside America. Former Christians who lost confidence in the Bible like Bart Erhman. Would it be better to focus on the more central, fundamental issue of the resurrection?

Agreed. And many non-believers who won't even consider the Bible because of 'errors', perceived or otherwise.

We have the Bible God wants us to have, inspired by the Holy Spirit, teaching us what He wants us to know - salvation through Jesus.

 

[Instant]

The article seemed to be pretty straight forward in explaining what Biblical inerrancy means to different people. I personally believe the Bible is absolute truth. I realize it is a translation, but I do not spend time worrying that anything in my KJV Bible might be incorrect. I take it as perfect and accept everything it says as true.

 

[Augustin56]

I think that the Wikipedia article is somewhat misleading. The Bible, like all books, must be interpreted correctly in order to get the message right. That's why St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Add to that the fact that the Bibles we have are translations into the vernacular (probably English for most of us here) and have inherent errors in translation due to the differences in language and culture.

Can you imagine needing brain surgery, and some guy comes up to you and said he's personally read several books on brain surgery, cover to cover, and he thinks he understands it all and would like to do the surgery for you? What would you tell him? He could claim that the books on surgery were the best in the world, and acknowledged by Wikipedia as being completely without error.

Christ didn't write a book to spread His truths. In fact, the New Testament wasn't assembled until the late 4th century. And the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the latest 100 years (give or take). What good would that have done, other than to exclude the majority of humanity. Jesus founded a Church to spread His truths. He trained 12 Apostles for three years, and they (minus Judas Iscariot) trained their replacements, the bishops, who did likewise, etc., for about 2000 years now.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think that the Wikipedia article is somewhat misleading. The Bible, like all books, must be interpreted correctly in order to get the message right. That's why St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Add to that the fact that the Bibles we have are translations into the vernacular (probably English for most of us here) and have inherent errors in translation due to the differences in language and culture.

Can you imagine needing brain surgery, and some guy comes up to you and said he's personally read several books on brain surgery, cover to cover, and he thinks he understands it all and would like to do the surgery for you? What would you tell him? He could claim that the books on surgery were the best in the world, and acknowledged by Wikipedia as being completely without error.

Christ didn't write a book to spread His truths. In fact, the New Testament wasn't assembled until the late 4th century. And the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until the latest 100 years (give or take). What good would that have done, other than to exclude the majority of humanity. Jesus founded a Church to spread His truths. He trained 12 Apostles for three years, and they (minus Judas Iscariot) trained their replacements, the bishops, who did likewise, etc., for about 2000 years now.

Christ didn't write a book, but the 40 days must have established quite a bit! See https://christcentered.community.fo...l-defenses-of-christian-truth.721/#post-23530 It's next door. There are some core truths about early Acts that don't get as much discussion as they deserve.