Is the entire Bible the infallible inerrant Word of God?

  • 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.
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#21
I believe that we are focusing on the wrong thing with many of the verses about women. Every one of the verses are dealing with the relationship between the church and the marriage relationship. These are the principles that I draw from them:
1. That the husband and wife are to serve each other, the husband as Christ served the church and the wife as the church serves Christ. In this area, I believe that the burden is greater on the husband and that there is much grace toward the woman.
2. That adult men should not mentor adult women and adult women should not mentor adult men. In the case where ministry occurs between sexes, such as with Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos, there must be the oversight of one of the proper sex.
3. That the ministry of men and women must not bring shame to the marriage relationship.
4. That the authority of men within the church cannot supplant the authority of a husband in a marriage relationship.
5. That both young and old can choose not to marry, as long as they can do so decently.
6. That faith must be taken into account when marriage is considered.
 
Dec 21, 2009
538
1
0
55
#22
The -------WORD------- of GOD was in action and in form before GOD said.......Let there be.......in fact, was already written. The exact WORDS we read in both TESTAMENTS were in form before Adam was ever a thought of GODs spoken command. Even as we study we understand that like Moses who wrote the first 5 books only lived himself in 4 of them but when GOD gave precept after precept this combination became written WORD. As in everything we read in the entire Bible it was well written by GOD and then acted out by man. We claim its unique inspired HOLY GHOST revelation unto each individual as translating at the moment of their compelation of events coming to pass at actual time but as in everything perfected by GOD was well in motion before any of the writers were even in existence. Once you can grasp the understanding and unique ability by which GOD said and then man wrote then you can rely upon its TRUTH and WORDS to be factual.
 
N

NoTearsShed

Guest
#23
No such thing as evolution.
God made this world the world dint just POOF become round & then POOF have water out all the planets & then poof it got oxygen.

All that was Jehovah doing, the one who created it.
Animals, people, earth & all that is in it he did by the work of his hands & mouth NO ONE helped him & no one is above him.


My guess is people who believe in evolution is they are to scared to face the fact that there is heaven & hell maybe they are scared of going to hell & dont feel like praying to God so they just lie to themselfs & say nothing happens so they can do as they please.
they are COMPLETLY wrong.
Its not like that.
 
M

mcubed

Guest
#24
I have trouble believing Paul was correct when he told women not to speak in church and that wives should submit to the wills of their husbands.
Scripture have never made women second-class citizens, in fact it has always liberated. Just look at the roles of some of the women in Scripture, in the Old Testament there is, the prophetesses like Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14) Deborah the Judge(Judges 4:4) Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14), and Isaiah's wife (Isaiah 8:3). Within the epistles we see women were a valued part of the ministry, especially in Romans 16 where Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, and the sister of Nereus are all mentioned with love and honor. The epistles and gospels also record for us five more female prophetesses: Anna in Luke 1:36-38 and Philip's four daughters in Acts 21:9 How can we understand passages used to diminish a woman's role within the body of Yeshua?
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:34
As with all of Paul’s letters, we have the answer but not the original question he is answering. Our job then becomes one of figuring out what the question may have been. The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that at least one Corinthian in the assembly wrote Paul about some problem of disturbance in the assembly from a portion of the women. There are three possibilities of what had happened we could guess from Sha'ul's reply:
Scenario 1) Paul is acknowledging these women have caused a disturbance by interrupting the assembly with questions, and Paul is ruling that these women should stop disturbing the assembly and keep quiet until they get home.
Scenario 2) Sha'ul is debunking the men's complaint by first quoting the solution they proposed in their letter to him (their solution being that "women keep quiet") and then Sha'ul challenges their solution with "what? did the Word of G-d come to you only"(vs36); meaning, 'do you men actually believe that G-d only gives His Word for men to share and not women?' In which case the answer is 'no' and women may continue the behavior the men complained about.
Scenario 3) The whole issue is strictly a tongues issue, and that perhaps some women were speaking out of turn and disturbing the entire meeting. With this view, Paul tells them 'not to forbid speaking in tongues' (vs39) but only try harder to maintain order.(vs40)
Keep in mind that this Corinthian passage is dealing with a specific problem in the Corinthian church. It was never intended to be taken out of context and thrown at any woman who dares open her mouth! Let me explain a few reasons why we know this. A) the topic of the passage is dealing with keeping order in the assembly; B) it is directed specifically at wives, but not all women fit the description of those being corrected; for example, it wouldn't apply to single women who have no husbands to ask at home, nor could it apply to women married to non-believing husbands who would not be able to answer their questions, nor also could it apply to all women with believing husbands, since many may have husbands unable to answer their questions; and the final reason this would not apply to 'all women' is C) there is no assumption that this problem existed among all women, it can only be directed to those who caused the disturbance being discussed. Point being, you cannot establish doctrine for *all* women when the case is addressing only a certain group engaging in a specific activity. Scripture interprets Scripture and we need to find out what does the Bible teach about women.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Women are to learn in silence. Silence here is Greek hesuchia (Strong's 2271). It is NOT phimoo which would mean 'muzzle' (contrary to how many may want read it) Hesuchia is better rendered 'quietness' and is translated more accurately in 2 Thesalonians 3:11-12 "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Yeshua Messiah, that with quietness/hesuchia they work, and eat their own bread." Clearly, in this passage, it is not assumed hesuchia means that they are to never utter a word. Simply put, they held their tongue and kept the peace. (as in Acts 22:2). This sort of quietness denotes making a conscious choice not to speak out and stir things up, not the same as being muzzled and never ever uttering a single sound ever. Big difference!!
Women are to learn in quiet peace and not teach or usurp authority over a man, but instead, will hold her tongue. The word teach here is didasko (Strong's 1321) meaning "to give instruction." So are we saying that women may give no instructions at all? Let's look closer now at what it means to 'usurp authority' -- it comes from the Greek authenteo (Strong's 831) and means to dominate or take control. Women are simply commanded not to dominate or control men with their teaching. This is not a prohibition against women doing any teaching, but instead a prohibition against women having disciples. Yeshua is an examples of “teacher” (meaning Rabi) with dedicated disciples. His disciples lived with them, slept with them, traveled with them everywhere, learned from them, lived their lives according to their teacher's instruction. It is *this* relationship a woman is being warned of. Women are not to take disciples, because such a leader would dominate and teach -- strongly influence their follower's lives. For a woman to take on disciples, she would upset G-d's order and have authority over men. Women are not to be the “pastor” or the head of a “church”, yes speek in them, teach in them but we are to be under the covering of the man. We can be sure it is this type of leadership teaching role being prohibited here, since we have examples of women performing other types of teaching elsewhere in Scripture. The Scripture says, “And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." Acts 18:26 Notice that she does not dominate here - she is acting as a helpmeet; she is helping to teach a man alongside her husband. She is not taking on disciples or doing anything unbecoming of a woman. Yet she is helping to teach. Moreover, the Word says, "Let the word of Messiah dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." Colossians 3:16. Women are included here, to teach and admonish one another in the assembly through praises. Women are not expected to be totally silent in the assembly. "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head..." 1 Corinthians 11:5. Obviously women teach when they reveal prophesies G-d has sent them. If women were forbidden to teach in an assembly or to any man, then it would be silly for G-d to reveal anything to them -- because they wouldn't be able to share it!
 

Sharp

Senior Member
May 5, 2009
2,565
19
38
#25
I don't doubt that the bible is the inerrant and true word of God. I believe it is.

I just want to point out though, that the bible's own claim to be the word of God is often not sufficiently convincing when sharing the gospel with unbelievers.

Consider a legal document. On it, in big letters, it says "This is the original version of this document". How do we know it is? Because the document itself tells us it is?

To an unbeliever, the argument that God wrote the bible because the bible says God wrote the bible isn't always convincing.

I've seen evangelism gone wrong where the believer continually answered the interested unbeliever's questions solely from verses in the bible, but his constant reply was that the historical accuracy of the bible had not been demonstrated to him.
 
J

jesus_be4_religion

Guest
#26
All things spiritual in the bible is infallible because spiritual things belong to God. Now, if we say all things wrote in the bible are 100% accurate then we forget that man wrote facts and estimated and looked for the best words to describe Hebrew words and stories, but God gave the Truth which is all things Christ related.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#27
All things spiritual in the bible is infallible because spiritual things belong to God. Now, if we say all things wrote in the bible are 100% accurate then we forget that man wrote facts and estimated and looked for the best words to describe Hebrew words and stories, but God gave the Truth which is all things Christ related.
The problem with this point of view is, that if the historical information is corrupted because of the human writers, how can we be sure of the "spiritual" things. Also, how do we know what is "spiritual" and reliable versus what is not reliable?
The Bible says all scripture is God breathed and that the men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. I believe that God moved through these men in such a way that the words that they wrote were exactly what God willed, no more and no less.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#28
Strictly speaking the whole bible is the word of God except where:

a) it is not God speaking (sometimes satan speaks, and this is obviously not the word of God)
b) the additions by the scribes (italicised words in the KJV, any footnotes, titles, copyright notices etc. )

Is it inerrant? Only the parts when God speaks, either directly through a prophet, in Christ, or through a holy apostle, because satan's lies are recorded in the bible, as is man's fallibility, so obviously the whole bible is not inerrant otherwise you'd have to conclude that what satan says in the bible is truthful!
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#29
Strictly speaking the whole bible is the word of God except where:

a) it is not God speaking (sometimes satan speaks, and this is obviously not the word of God)
b) the additions by the scribes (italicised words in the KJV, any footnotes, titles, copyright notices etc. )

Is it inerrant? Only the parts when God speaks, either directly through a prophet, in Christ, or through a holy apostle, because satan's lies are recorded in the bible, as is man's fallibility, so obviously the whole bible is not inerrant otherwise you'd have to conclude that what satan says in the bible is truthful!
Assuming that what you are talking about is, for example, Peter's error in Acts 2 regarding Judas' death, the Bible is inerrant in recording what Peter said. If you are saying that the devil snuck in some stuff under the guise of scripture, I disagree.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#30
Are we talking about the inerrancy in its recording or the inerrancy in what it says? If the latter, then it's obviously only those parts where God speaks. Unless you'd like to conclude that what satan has said in the bible is truthful?
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#31
Is the bible inerrant? In being written down it's good enough subject to the human limits of the original authors. In translation more errors are included.
In content, it is really truthful only when God speaks directly- what satan speaks are lies, what others say is hearsay. In Genesis, satan said to adam and eve, 'you shall not die', that is one example of a lie recorded in scripture. Is that verse inerrant? No, it is in error. If we fail to realise this error then we would be agreeing with satan. Is it God speaking? Only in the sense of it being recorded for us to read what happened.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#32
Is the bible inerrant? In being written down it's good enough subject to the human limits of the original authors. In translation more errors are included.
In content, it is really truthful only when God speaks directly- what satan speaks are lies, what others say is hearsay. In Genesis, satan said to adam and eve, 'you shall not die', that is one example of a lie recorded in scripture. Is that verse inerrant? No, it is in error. If we fail to realise this error then we would be agreeing with satan. Is it God speaking? Only in the sense of it being recorded for us to read what happened.
I think that your view of inspiration is weak. You start out with a right assumption--inerrant recording, but you apply sloppily, in a way that opens the door to a liberal method of interpretation. If you believe that only the "thus saith the Lord" is inspired, you eliminate great portions of scripture, all the history, all the poetry and even the didactic portions. And you have no confidence in preservation, so what is the point?
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#33
Faith comes from fact. Wishful thinking comes from opinion.

So you think that when satan said 'you shall not surely die" satan was not in error?

When you dig a little deeper you will find this idea of inerrancy, meaning, 100% success rate , is wishful thinking that comes from opinion. In other words, don't teach or preach things which you cannot prove. Any verses that say the entire bible is inerrant? I can show you the verse where the KJV translators wrote turtles instead of turtledoves if you like. There's many more examples.

Some people who believe the whole bible is strictly without error in absolutely every way (in content), are the ones who often reach extremely literal but wrong views.
 
Last edited:
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#34
By the way, liberal interpretations are often made from the "100% inerrant KJV" and other versions as well. It is a matter of interpretation not biblical accuracy.
 
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#35
Faith comes from fact. Wishful thinking comes from opinion.

So you think that when satan said 'you shall not surely die" satan was not in error?

When you dig a little deeper you will find this idea of inerrancy, meaning, 100% success rate , is wishful thinking that comes from opinion. In other words, don't teach or preach things which you cannot prove. Any verses that say the entire bible is inerrant? I can show you the verse where the KJV translators wrote turtles instead of turtledoves if you like. There's many more examples.
The problem is that you build with no foundation. You present a question that confuses veracity with endorsement and then try to use it to color all scripture. You like being the muckraker, so rather than dealing in true issues, you instead try to pose riddles. Your knowledge is a thousand miles wide and a quarter inch deep. You are a scoffer and a fool. You have been answered a hundred times and will seek another hundred because of your ego.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#36
See you're just attacking the poster and not interested in objective discussion on this topic. If you can't handle these sorts of discussions with a Christian how can you deal with these when you encounter them talking to the atheist or agnostic?
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#37
Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die" Statement of truth or error?

Statement of error obviously as satan spoke it. Therefore there is error in the bible, it is entirely inerrant? No. Was that statement recorded right? Yes probably.

When we say 'entire' it is recognising that there's pit falls in it as well, which means we have to be more careful in interpretation.
 
Last edited:
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#38
Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die" Statement of truth or error?

Statement of error obviously as satan spoke it. Therefore there is error in the bible, it is entirely inerrant? No. Was that statement recorded right? Yes probably.

When we say 'entire' it is recognising that there's pit falls in it as well, which means we have to be more careful in interpretation.
Inspiration means that the Holy Spirit so guided and superintended the writers of the sacred text, making use of their own unique personalities, that they wrote all the He wanted them to write without excess or error. Inerrancy consists of the final word of that statement. Your question inserts the concept of endorsement, and has nothing to do with inerrancy. Neither do questions of transmission or translation. And my opinion of you remains unchanged.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#39
The OP made no mention about the type of inerrancy, if it did you would have a point. Since it doesn't, you don't, and simply cannot answer my questions, which is not surprising as you aren't really a deep thinker anyway more like a communicator of the proverbial ,that's in addition to being not a very nice person..that's my opinion of you, if you're interested ;).
 
Last edited:
C

charisenexcelcis

Guest
#40
The OP made no mention about the type of inerrancy, if it did you would have a point. Since it doesn't, you don't, and simply cannot answer my questions, which is not surprising as you aren't really a deep thinker anyway more like a communicator of the proverbial.
The problem is that you don't understand the answer. The Bible is inerrant in reporting the lie of the snake--just like the error reported accurately in Acts. So, whatsoever the scripture asserts as true and free from error is to be recieved as such. And whatever the scripture asserts not to be true is recieved as such. This is the difference between inerrancy and endorsement. Is that clear enough for you?