What Is Bible Inerrancy?

Christian Definition: Concerning the Bible, according to Robert Rushmore inerrant means wholly true or without mistake. It refers to the fact that the writers of the Bible wrote exactly what God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired them to write.Given that definition, is it ethical to use an author’s inspired words for a purpose other than what was originally intended by the author inspired by God?Here is an example that has been thrown around quite a bit lately. This verse has been used many times to give credence to NT writings for teaching, rebuking, etc. in righteousness (Various Commentaries), to support that the Bible has no errors, and to claim that the Bible does not contradict itself. (Please don't ask me if I believe the NT is good for teachings etc., sooo not the point.)If we look at the reality of when 2 Timothy was written, we find a different purpose presented by Edgar J. Goodspeed in The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The OT was being cast aside by Marcion who was considered a heretic. 2 Timothy was written to disclaim Marcion’s teachings. Do we have the right to change the original purpose or meaning of an author's work, especially one supposedly inspired by God, to support current dogma and tradition?If one truly believes that the authors in the Bible compilation were inspired by God, shouldn't they remain true to the purpose of the work?IMO the term "Bible Inerrancy" is being portrayed incorrectly given the meaning of errant. NOTE: This thread is not, not, not, not, not, did I say NOT, about whether the Bible IS inerrant or whether it does or does not contradict "itself."I don’t want to get into the same old arguments on ancient "typos" or lack of scientific accuracy.Hopefully I haven't put in too many questions, but I think they are related.I would like this in the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum. Thanks

quote:

---

If negligence and bias enters into it, how is inerrancy sustained? By definition it can't be.

---

By the Christian definition of inerrancy, you're right, they can't sustain inerrancy. The disclaimer, IMO, is this link's attempt at sustaining their definition of inerrancy.

quote:

---

Another, equally important issue during the 19th century, when biblical inerrancy was first propounded as dogma, was the higher criticism of the bible. Higher criticism went beyond determining mere meaning of the words to considerations of authorship and accuracy in terms of science and history.

---

I did some searching after reading your post and found this link concerning statements by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). Now I understand a little better why some of the arguments presented seem indifferent to the author's purpose.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I was reading the "Chicago Statement of Bible Inerrancy" by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). Article XV "WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration." was a response to the statement that "The Bible does not teach inerrancy."This affirmation doesn't really say that the Bible authors make claims of inerrancy, but that the doctrine (which isn't necessarily inspired) is grounded in the teaching about inspiration.The only verse that comes to mind on inspiration is the one listed in the OP. Anyone know any others?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hey Asgara,Thanks for finding the thread. I remember when it was active. I missed the ICBI part apparently.I find it mind boggling that this doctrine is based on one line from a written work supposedly written by Paul, but probably isn't Pauline.After some searching I did find the Deuterocanonical Books in the New Testament.So the "pick and choose" scenerio is used in the inerrancy doctrine as well as the "we aren't under the law" doctrine. It's all relative to who is doing the teaching.Oddly enough I think that Christians would consider the copious published Christian books to be inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc. and yet they are not considered scripture.Interesting

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.