I’m not saying that the Bible doesn’t contain the Word or word of God. My point entirely has been that the Bible nor many of the Books weren’t in circulation when many of these quotes validating the word of God were spoken. As a collection can we blanket statement this collection as the entire and authoritative word? We disagree about content because it is subjective.
Does the Bible claim to be inerrant?
- Thread starter Antony_me
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scripture, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15)
Peter validate Paul's writing as being scripture so I do not really understand what your hang up is. Your thinking seems to be more along the lines an unbeliever. The "scripture" we have now is better than what they had back then. Scrolls were hand written by scribes so it is not like every body had their own copy. There were no chapters and verses to help you quickly navigate the Bible. You couldn't search for words and phrases using a computer to quickly find a verse to quote to someone or for research. The pattern in the Bible is generally that what comes latter is better than the former. The word of God did not start out perfect and degrade. It started as a seed and "mightily grew." (Acts 19:20) In Jesus's day they had just the OT but the growth occurred and now we have the NT.
Peter validate Paul's writing as being scripture so I do not really understand what your hang up is. Your thinking seems to be more along the lines an unbeliever. The "scripture" we have now is better than what they had back then. Scrolls were hand written by scribes so it is not like every body had their own copy. There were no chapters and verses to help you quickly navigate the Bible. You couldn't search for words and phrases using a computer to quickly find a verse to quote to someone or for research. The pattern in the Bible is generally that what comes latter is better than the former. The word of God did not start out perfect and degrade. It started as a seed and "mightily grew." (Acts 19:20) In Jesus's day they had just the OT but the growth occurred and now we have the NT.
Last edited:
And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Luke 8:8)
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. (Luke 8:11)
But the word of God grew and multiplied (Acts 12:24)
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 19:20)
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
Consider these verses as far as the manuscripts are concerned. Which manuscripts “mightily grew” and “multiplied?” The argument that the “oldest and best manuscripts” aka the uncial manuscripts (an inferior and less mature form of Greek) are superior to the cursive manuscripts is not biblical.
Think about natural seed for a moment taking wheat for example. Has the information in the seed been preserved from the time Jesus spoke the parable of the sower to this day? Was there a part of the seed that did not rise up (seed coat) and was lost. Think about the originals turning to dust and passing away much as the seed coat does, yet God is able to cause something better to rise up. I think we can start taking the Bible much more literal in these last days!
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. (Luke 8:11)
But the word of God grew and multiplied (Acts 12:24)
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 19:20)
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (1 Peter 1:23)
Consider these verses as far as the manuscripts are concerned. Which manuscripts “mightily grew” and “multiplied?” The argument that the “oldest and best manuscripts” aka the uncial manuscripts (an inferior and less mature form of Greek) are superior to the cursive manuscripts is not biblical.
Think about natural seed for a moment taking wheat for example. Has the information in the seed been preserved from the time Jesus spoke the parable of the sower to this day? Was there a part of the seed that did not rise up (seed coat) and was lost. Think about the originals turning to dust and passing away much as the seed coat does, yet God is able to cause something better to rise up. I think we can start taking the Bible much more literal in these last days!
Last edited:
Fulfilled things (testimonies)can be delivered just as well as believed things (testimonies).
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and servants of the Word
Same thing, and neither one says the word "testimonies". You added that word.
How is "having accurately followed after all things from above" any more or less nonsensical than "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"? I understand both of them perfectly fine, and I understand what Luke meant, don't you?
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word
even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and servants of the Word
Same thing, and neither one says the word "testimonies". You added that word.
How is "having accurately followed after all things from above" any more or less nonsensical than "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first"? I understand both of them perfectly fine, and I understand what Luke meant, don't you?
It says "word of God" not the number of Bibles so I suppose my answer is the word of God!
Exactly! Think about what you said! First off it was the word of God that was sown but we do know that God is love.
It was sown in the heart of the believer! Who do you think wrote the epistles. Who made copies of the epistles and spread them? Who added the chapters and verses? Who sat down and translated the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into various languages. It was the believers of God's word and it "prevailed!"
Exactly! Think about what you said! First off it was the word of God that was sown but we do know that God is love.
It was sown in the heart of the believer! Who do you think wrote the epistles. Who made copies of the epistles and spread them? Who added the chapters and verses? Who sat down and translated the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into various languages. It was the believers of God's word and it "prevailed!"
How is a fulfilled thing a testimony? That would mean historical fulfillment can’t occur until after testimony of the event is given. No, it can’t be believed by non witnesses until testimony is providdd.
Testimonies are witness accounts of historical events.
Fufilled things are the actual deeds done, they are not the testimony of witnesses that saw and heard what was done.
Thats why legal testimony is required because you can’t carry the fulfilled thing into court.
Fulfilled things are past events.
Testimonies must be believed before judgement by people who weren't witnesses can legally determine the truth of what happened.
Nevertheless, if you equate fulfilled things to testimonies then, the Authorized Version is better since it’s well stated accurately.
Testimonies are witness accounts of historical events.
Fufilled things are the actual deeds done, they are not the testimony of witnesses that saw and heard what was done.
Thats why legal testimony is required because you can’t carry the fulfilled thing into court.
Fulfilled things are past events.
Testimonies must be believed before judgement by people who weren't witnesses can legally determine the truth of what happened.
Nevertheless, if you equate fulfilled things to testimonies then, the Authorized Version is better since it’s well stated accurately.
Last edited:
You missed the point. Just as natural seed is perfectly preserved and translated (DNA) so was God's word. Man began a concerted effort to corrupt the word God during the industrial age when scientific nonsense such evolution was conceived. In these modern times they have been corrupting the natural seed using genetic modification by changing the "code." There has been a concerted effort to change the "DNA" of the Bible and it has been getting worse over time and now we have the 2011 NIV with its gender neutral rendering of several verses.
No, I got your point. I was agreeing with you. You're just making a new point now. I don't know Greek well enough to address the gender issues in the KJV, NIV, or any of the other versions that have these issues. I've been aware of it for some time, like the early 80's. But I pray over what I read, and the Holy Spirit has always proven faithful to give me discernment about these things. (Not that I always listen LOL)
I guess I am trying to convince you that, according to the Bible, we don't need to settle for "sufficiently inerrant." Let's say it was possible to choose a water supply from two sources. One is the city water supply sitting in some storage tank and the other is a natural spring free of man made pollution (like a spring in the Garden of Eden). Who would choose the city water supply? I can drink the city water and live but that spring water sure does taste better and I know there is not an allowable amount of lead or any of the junk in the water. This is kinda how view this discussion of modern translations versus the King James Bible.
"O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him." (Psalm 34:8)
"O taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him." (Psalm 34:8)
My hang up is that the original question is whether the Bible claims to be inerrant. Not whether it bears truth, or knowledge or salvation. Not whether it’s historically correct, useful for correction or training in righteousness. Inerrant would mean not only it’s authors, translators and scribes were flawless but that you yourself had full knowledge and understanding able to detect any flaws. My educated opinion, and I call it an opinion because I’m not claiming infallibility, is that even though the Bible contains the words to Life, those who are politically motivated were responsible for its canonization. Those who were not Spirit filled probably had much to do with its interpretation. There are many people who go around using half truths and mistranslated verses, used out of context, like a legal document condemning babes in Christ before they can even chew the meat of scripture.
You accuse me of sounding like an unbeliever because I question intent and context. Words have double meanings, people use imagery and metaphor. Some promises weren’t meant for everybody. Some were intended just for Jews, some just to individuals, some were for future, some were already given. That doesn’t stop some preachers from propagating name it and claim it, believe and recieve theology.
I believe in the Message of the Gospel more than anything, but to call the Bible, it’s translations and interpretations inerrant is intellectually dishonest. It’s not that I don’t believe the word of God is everlasting, it’s that those who determined what constitutes what that word is or isn’t have not been representing Christ. For years the “Church” has hidden truth to gain power. What truths may they still be keeping? You will know a tree by it’s fruit, and that is some rotten fruit.
Its funny that most of the time I spend here at CC is debating fellow Christians. No body cares what I do believe, they only want to declare me a heretic, Mormon, mystic, and apostate because of the jots and tittles that I don’t. It would be easy to dismantle sentence by sentence, word by word, twist and misrepresent all of the statements contrary to my beliefs. I just don’t think that’s why we should be here. I think we should edify, and strengthen our brothers and sisters. Too many people are just here because they like to argue and feel superior.
I have dedicated my existence to seek out truth, knowledge and understanding. I have left no stone unturned in this persuit. The philosophers shun me because of my faith. The Christians shun me because I question everything. God I know, the Holy Spirit teaches me everything. Yeshua is the author of my salvation and I look forward to His return and reign. I also look forward to seeing all of the brothers and sisters here at CC face to face so we can look back on these discussions and all laugh at our ignorance.
You accuse me of sounding like an unbeliever because I question intent and context. Words have double meanings, people use imagery and metaphor. Some promises weren’t meant for everybody. Some were intended just for Jews, some just to individuals, some were for future, some were already given. That doesn’t stop some preachers from propagating name it and claim it, believe and recieve theology.
I believe in the Message of the Gospel more than anything, but to call the Bible, it’s translations and interpretations inerrant is intellectually dishonest. It’s not that I don’t believe the word of God is everlasting, it’s that those who determined what constitutes what that word is or isn’t have not been representing Christ. For years the “Church” has hidden truth to gain power. What truths may they still be keeping? You will know a tree by it’s fruit, and that is some rotten fruit.
Its funny that most of the time I spend here at CC is debating fellow Christians. No body cares what I do believe, they only want to declare me a heretic, Mormon, mystic, and apostate because of the jots and tittles that I don’t. It would be easy to dismantle sentence by sentence, word by word, twist and misrepresent all of the statements contrary to my beliefs. I just don’t think that’s why we should be here. I think we should edify, and strengthen our brothers and sisters. Too many people are just here because they like to argue and feel superior.
I have dedicated my existence to seek out truth, knowledge and understanding. I have left no stone unturned in this persuit. The philosophers shun me because of my faith. The Christians shun me because I question everything. God I know, the Holy Spirit teaches me everything. Yeshua is the author of my salvation and I look forward to His return and reign. I also look forward to seeing all of the brothers and sisters here at CC face to face so we can look back on these discussions and all laugh at our ignorance.
There is not any individual in the Bible that was flawless save the Lord Jesus Christ. God you uses the flaws and weaknesses of people to accomplish His perfect will. They are even accomplishing His will and serving Him unawares!
[FONT="]"Thus saith the [/FONT][FONT="]Lord[/FONT][FONT="] to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;.." (Isaiah 45:1)
[/FONT]
[FONT="]"Thus saith the [/FONT][FONT="]Lord[/FONT][FONT="] to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;.." (Isaiah 45:1)
[/FONT]
While it makes good copy, this made-up story is completely misleading because it is based on a false premise, and employs a false dichotomy.
The truth is that the KJV was translated from printed Greek editions, which were in turn constructed from very few late and incomplete manuscripts. There are far more manuscripts available now, there is better scholarship, there is broader knowledge, and the modern translators don't answer to the theological whims of an English king.
Further, many of the words in the KJV are truly archaic (when was the last time you used "trow" or "wimples" when you weren't reading or referring to the KJV?) and many have commonplace meanings today that they simply did not have in 1611.
The KJV is not the standard by which all translations are judged. Arguments based on the premise that it is are inherently flawed and often self-refuting.
The truth is that the KJV was translated from printed Greek editions, which were in turn constructed from very few late and incomplete manuscripts. There are far more manuscripts available now, there is better scholarship, there is broader knowledge, and the modern translators don't answer to the theological whims of an English king.
Further, many of the words in the KJV are truly archaic (when was the last time you used "trow" or "wimples" when you weren't reading or referring to the KJV?) and many have commonplace meanings today that they simply did not have in 1611.
The KJV is not the standard by which all translations are judged. Arguments based on the premise that it is are inherently flawed and often self-refuting.
Of course, that does not mean we use the word in our day-to-day language. I rarely speak of nuns' garb