Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Is Bible Inerrancy?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 1 of 16 (174019)
01-05-2005 8:42 AM


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.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
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.
By 139, Marcion of Sinope, in Pontus, reached Rome, where he tried to win the church to his views. He thought the creator-God of the Jewish scriptures a different being from the merciful Father revealed by Jesus and rejected the whole Jewish scriptureMarcion's repudiation of the Jewish scripture, which had long been the Bible of the church, leads to the reassertion of its authority
2 Timothy was written to disclaim Marcion’s teachings.
The Pastoral Letters accomplish this. They disown Marcion and his chief positions in the name of Paul; "There is but one God," I Tim. 2:5; "All scripture is divinely inspired," II Tim. 3:16. "Keep away from the .... contradictions [Antitheses]," I Tim. 6:20. In this way Paul himself is made to disclaim Marcion.
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.
Webster’s Dictionary
Errant — 2. erring or straying from what is right
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 01-05-2005 3:24 PM purpledawn has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 16 (174128)
01-05-2005 1:41 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 16 (174158)
01-05-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by purpledawn
01-05-2005 8:42 AM


A disclaimer at your first link contains this statement:
Translations have strengths and weaknesses depending how faithfully and honestly they were translated.
I'd like to know how this is determined.
Variance between translations into the same language sometimes is owing to unintentional negligence or intentional bias.
If negligence and bias enters into it, how is inerrancy sustained? By definition it can't be.
At any rate, the question "What is Bible Inerrancy" can be partly answered thus: it is a reaction by certain Christians to what they viewed as a number of 19th century attacks on the reliability of scripture. One of those attacks was ToE, giving rise to the debate which is the basis of this forum. 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.
It therefore might be said that biblical inerrancy put the "reaction" in "reactionary".

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by purpledawn, posted 01-05-2005 8:42 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 01-05-2005 6:03 PM berberry has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 4 of 16 (174198)
01-05-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by berberry
01-05-2005 3:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by berberry, posted 01-05-2005 3:24 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 01-06-2005 6:49 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 5 of 16 (174517)
01-06-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by purpledawn
01-05-2005 6:03 PM


Article XV
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by purpledawn, posted 01-05-2005 6:03 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 01-06-2005 7:16 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 16 (174521)
01-06-2005 7:11 PM


Oh Brother, Whereart Thou
I think one needs to be careful on what is being portrayed as "accurate and inerrant" within the Bible. That the Bible was "inspired" by God is the major determinate in my view.
First, let's focus on inspiration. The Cohen brother's movie "Oh Brother, Whereart Thou" was inspired by the Odyssey. For instance, John Goodman's character (the one eyed Bible salesman) was inspired by the cyclops in Homer's epic. So what we are dealing with is ideas that God gave the biblical authors. God did not DICTATE the bible, He inspired. "God's Word" is more accurately "God's Truth". In the same way, Aesop's Tales relate moral truths even if a tortoise and a hare ever raced. So the inspiration, IMVHO, was not for a factually true account of history, but rather a theologically and philosophically true account of the relationship between God, Man, and morality. When I was a Christian, this is how I viewed the Bible, as in inerrant guide for developing a christian life and a relationship with God.
Just as a quick personal note, this wasn't exactly the view held by my fellow church goers, they tended to be more of the fundamentalist vein. During this time I attended a private college that was founded by Presbyterians. The last vestige of the school's christian founding was one semester of a religiously based class. Lo and behold, the professor held the same views as I did. He even did one better. He was able to put the philosophical and theological underpinnings found in the Bible into historical context. It was a great class. I wish more christians were like my college professor, but alas, my wishes will remain just that.

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 7 of 16 (174522)
01-06-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by purpledawn
01-06-2005 6:49 PM


Doc Bill?
The 2 Tim verse is the only one I have generally seen used to support inerrancy.
I can't find it at this time but we have had this discussion in the past with doctrbill. The Greek word translated as scripture is graphe. Graphe simply means writings. This puts a whole new spin on 2 Tim. ALL writings are inspired and useful for teaching?
I hope Doc Bill sees this and steps in, but I believe he asserted that Paul quoted non-canonical writings as well as pagan sources.
I will look for Doc's posts on this topic.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by purpledawn, posted 01-06-2005 6:49 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Asgara, posted 01-06-2005 7:30 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 8 of 16 (174524)
01-06-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Asgara
01-06-2005 7:16 PM


Re: Doc Bill?
The OP is by Doc and so starts the discussion of inerrancy but this
Message 21 is the part I wanted to address.
...Whatever he found profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness ...
And he demonstrated, by example, what that meant to him.
He quoted the Septuagint which Jews reject.
He quoted apocryphal books which Protestants reject.
He quoted Pagan poets (such heresy!).
Paul employed these scriptures as if they were inspired, utilizing them in circumstances which HE had designated appropriate to the use of inspired scripture.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 01-06-2005 7:16 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 01-09-2005 9:16 AM Asgara has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 9 of 16 (175181)
01-09-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Asgara
01-06-2005 7:30 PM


Re: Doc Bill?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Asgara, posted 01-06-2005 7:30 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Asgara, posted 01-09-2005 10:51 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 10 of 16 (175201)
01-09-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by purpledawn
01-09-2005 9:16 AM


Re: Doc Bill?
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.
Considering the number of people who get Paradise Lost and The Bible mixed up, I'd say many have no clue just what they ARE calling inspired.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 01-09-2005 9:16 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 01-15-2005 10:31 AM Asgara has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 16 (177244)
01-15-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Asgara
01-09-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Doc Bill?
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.
"Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power." Romans 13:1 Living Bible
And ...
"The policeman is sent by God ..." verse 6
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.
"... note this: no one can interpret any prophecy of Scripture by himself. For it was not through any human whim that men prophesied of old; men they were, but, impelled by the Holy Spirit, they spoke the words of God." 1 Peter 1:21, New English Bible
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Asgara, posted 01-09-2005 10:51 AM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-15-2005 11:01 AM doctrbill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 16 (177248)
01-15-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by doctrbill
01-15-2005 10:31 AM


Re: Doc Bill?
DB
One thing I have long wondered is whether the quotation from Peter originated during the period of ideologic conflict between Peter and Paul?
It appears that after Christs resurection there was a significant period of internal conflict among the various factions of the apostles, a James group, those following Peter, the Hellenistic influence of the Paul faction, perhaps even a faction following Mary. But we lose track of the majority of the apostles.
We have almost no information about James or Simon the Zealot, Philip or Bartholomew, Matthias or Thaddius.We have found scraps of material from Thomas and Mary (perhaps or at least attributed to them) but again, little information about what they did or what their postions and theology were. We know little about the history of the expansion all the way to India or south into North Africa.
Then there was the second wave of apostles and again, we have almost no information about them, even their names.
Is there much information available that can lead to an understanding of what actually happened during the formation of the early church?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 01-15-2005 10:31 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 01-15-2005 2:07 PM jar has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 13 of 16 (177284)
01-15-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
01-15-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Doc Bill?
jar writes:
One thing I have long wondered is whether the quotation from Peter originated during the period of ideologic conflict between Peter and Paul?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 01-15-2005 11:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 01-15-2005 6:18 PM doctrbill has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 16 (177312)
01-15-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by doctrbill
01-15-2005 2:07 PM


Re: Doc Bill?
I find it ludicrous that only after the movement was co-opted by the Evil Empire did a full accounting of its activities commence.
Well, there may have been considerable accounting in existence. We get some hints of it, for example mentions of "A Gosple" or the "Book of Enouch" being in common circulation. But we only get hints. It's possible much was there but expunged.
But one other thing I think needs to be considered. It could well be that it is only because movement was co-opted by the Evil Empire that we even know about Christianity. For example, Bartholomew and Thomas may well have gone as far as India yet there is almost no signs of what was acomplished. The same can be said for almost all of the expansionary churches in Asia, Africa, even northern Europe.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 01-15-2005 2:07 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by doctrbill, posted 01-15-2005 7:05 PM jar has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 15 of 16 (177322)
01-15-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
01-15-2005 6:18 PM


Re: Doc Bill?
jar writes:
Bartholomew and Thomas may well have gone as far as India yet there is almost no signs of what was acomplished. The same can be said for almost all of the expansionary churches in Asia, Africa, even northern Europe.
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?
It could well be that it is only because movement was co-opted by the Evil Empire that we even know about Christianity.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 01-15-2005 6:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 01-15-2005 7:54 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024