What Is Bible Inerrancy?

Hello Asgara,Thank you for remembering my humble opinions on this subject.I believe that Paul's opinion, (if he existed and wrote these scripts), that everything written is inspired by God, came about because of a belief that the ability to write is a Gift from God. This should not be difficult to understand when we consider this man's other opinions. Paul also taught that every government is set up by God. And ... So much for civil disobedience!As to the single verse support for the doctrine of inspiration: I must inform you that there is another bit of script which may get thrown into the argument. Here, the Apostle admonishes his audience to follow the rules of Christianity as revealed by his interpretation of the speeches (prophesies) recorded in scripture. He warns them against trying to figure out the meaning of those "prohesies" without his assistance. The Apostle then goes on to warn his audience that "false" prophets (preachers) will arise to offer alternative points of view. These he curses.Seems to me that Saint Peter imagined himself to be "impelled by the Holy Spirit." He certainly did not want anyone gainsaying his interpretation of Holy Scripture.I have said that the above quoted verse is about speech, not writing, and thus inappropriately applied to the argument for inspired scripture. One might also consider the difference (or similarity) between being God breathed writing and spirit impelled speaking. But this is probably a fruitless, nit-picking, dissection.The fact remains, in my opinion:
There is no internal (biblical) justification for assuming that the anthology is without error. It is, in fact, examination of the contents which reveals its error. The Bible is clearly the work of men. Great men, yes. Inspired men, Yes. God-like men, no doubt. Charismatic men, of course. Great kings, Great warriors, Great lovers, Great orators,Great Jews.db

Hi jar,As I was preparing my response this morning, it occured to me that St Peter and St Paul may have differed on this doctrine. Peter seems to favor interpretation by committee (no private interpretation), while Paul asserts that interpretation is a special gift, given to individuals. (1 Corinthians 12:10)I am not an expert on the early church but the impression I received in theology school is that very little is known with certainty. As I study for myself I see that what is known is even less than what I thought. But, the lack of information about the early church speaks volumes to me.These were supposedly the most important days of the movement, featuring the most saintly personages of its history. This was a time when the message was most clear, most pure, and closest to Jesus.I find it ludicrous that only after the movement was co-opted by the Evil Empire did a full accounting of its activities commence. The rest of the sorry tale is history.db

The primary purpose of the movement was to whip up support for Christ (i.e. a Jewish kingdom come) from among Jews of the "diaspora." Jews are clear enough on what it meant to be "The Christ." In fact, it seems that everyone but Christians themselves is aware that Christianity is a political religion. The "mission to the gentiles" was politically motivated. That is why it attracted censure from the Roman government.Do you agree? I believe you are right about that. The question then becomes: Is what we do know actually correct? Is it the real truth about those rebellious men, their master and their movement? I think we have reason to believe that the whole thing has been glamorized. Yes?db