Is God's Word Inerrant
- Thread starter Desertsrose
- 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.
Since you brought this up, please read and study what John Gill has pointed out in his commentary of this verse. That was NOT an error.
"Through the purchasing of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver, the price that Christ was valued at, a prophecy in the writings of the Old Testament had its accomplishment: but about this there is some difficulty. The evangelist here says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet; whereas in his prophecy there is no mention of any such thing.
There is indeed an account of his buying his uncle Hanameel's son's field, in ( Jeremiah 32:7-12 ) , but not a word of a potter, or a potter's field, or of the price of it, thirty pieces of silver; and that as a price at which he, or any other person was valued; but the passage which is manifestly referred to, stands in ( Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 ) , where are these words, "and I said unto them, if ye think good, give [me] my price, and if not, forbear; so they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver: and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter, a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord":
the removing of this difficulty, it might be observed, that the Syriac and Persic versions make no mention of any prophet's name, only read, "which was spoken by the prophet"; and so may as well be ascribed to Zechariah, as to Jeremy, and better: but it must be owned, that Jeremy is in all the Greek copies, in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel.
Various things are said for the reconciling of this matter: some have thought that Zechariah had two names, and that besides Zechariah, he was called Jeremy; but of this there is no proof. Jerom F25 affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets. Moreover, Mr. Mede F26 has laboured, by various arguments, to prove, that the four last chapters of Zechariah were written by Jeremy, in which this passage stands; and if so, the reason is clear, for the citation in his name.
But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, ( Luke 24:44 ) , because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage F1
"Through the purchasing of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver, the price that Christ was valued at, a prophecy in the writings of the Old Testament had its accomplishment: but about this there is some difficulty. The evangelist here says it was spoken by Jeremy the prophet; whereas in his prophecy there is no mention of any such thing.
There is indeed an account of his buying his uncle Hanameel's son's field, in ( Jeremiah 32:7-12 ) , but not a word of a potter, or a potter's field, or of the price of it, thirty pieces of silver; and that as a price at which he, or any other person was valued; but the passage which is manifestly referred to, stands in ( Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:13 ) , where are these words, "and I said unto them, if ye think good, give [me] my price, and if not, forbear; so they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver: and the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter, a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord":
the removing of this difficulty, it might be observed, that the Syriac and Persic versions make no mention of any prophet's name, only read, "which was spoken by the prophet"; and so may as well be ascribed to Zechariah, as to Jeremy, and better: but it must be owned, that Jeremy is in all the Greek copies, in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel.
Various things are said for the reconciling of this matter: some have thought that Zechariah had two names, and that besides Zechariah, he was called Jeremy; but of this there is no proof. Jerom F25 affirms, that in an Hebrew volume, being an apocryphal work of Jeremy, which was shown him by one of the Nazarene sect, he read these words verbatim: so that though they do not stand in the writings of Jeremy, which are canonical Scripture, yet in an apocryphal book of his, and which may as well be referred to, as the book of Maccabees, the traditions of the Jews, the prophecies of Enoch, and the writings of the Heathen poets. Moreover, Mr. Mede F26 has laboured, by various arguments, to prove, that the four last chapters of Zechariah were written by Jeremy, in which this passage stands; and if so, the reason is clear, for the citation in his name.
But what seems best to solve this difficulty, is, that the order of the books of the Old Testament is not the same now, as it was formerly: the sacred writings were divided, by the Jews, into three parts: the first was called the law, which contains the five books of Moses; the second, the prophets, which contains the former and the latter prophets; the former prophets began at Joshua, and the latter at Jeremy; the third was called Cetubim, or the Hagiographa, the holy writings, which began with the book of Psalms: now, as this whole third and last part is called the Psalms, ( Luke 24:44 ) , because it began with that book; so all that part which contained the latter prophets, for the same reason, beginning at Jeremy, might be called by his name; hence a passage, standing in the prophecy of Zechariah, who was one of the latter prophets, might be justly cited, under the name of Jeremy. That such was the order of the books of the Old Testament, is evident from the following passage F1
N
Haha I must have quoted you before you deleted it 
One of the women be silent threads? Gosh, there are so many of them
Are men trying to tell us something?
One of the women be silent threads? Gosh, there are so many of them
Are men trying to tell us something?
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...en-not-speak-church.html?highlight=beat+sense
G
It is not foolish...
The Word of God is most certainly inerrant -- even if ten-out-of-ten interpretations are wrong.
Whether any particular translation of scripture contains any error ( grammatical, doctrinal, or otherwise ) is another matter altogether...
The Word of God is without error - by definition ( God does not make errors. ) - and, without exception.
Albeit, the Word of God can be "made to no effect" according to the 'level' and 'extent' of perversion of the written record that we call the scriptures.
And, that is where the real question lies.
God said that He would preserve His Word.
If we believe that, then we know that we have His preserved Word.
The question is -- when, where and how was / is it preserved?
The Word of God is most certainly inerrant -- even if ten-out-of-ten interpretations are wrong.
Whether any particular translation of scripture contains any error ( grammatical, doctrinal, or otherwise ) is another matter altogether...
The Word of God is without error - by definition ( God does not make errors. ) - and, without exception.
Albeit, the Word of God can be "made to no effect" according to the 'level' and 'extent' of perversion of the written record that we call the scriptures.
And, that is where the real question lies.
God said that He would preserve His Word.
If we believe that, then we know that we have His preserved Word.
The question is -- when, where and how was / is it preserved?
B
Some bibles are still holding on to the "by Moses" statement even the new translations. it may not be a big deal, people should know Moses didn't write the ten commandments but I assume bibles keep it in because it is also known some of the more in detail mentionings of the Ten Commandments Moses did write, so it is a two way street on that 50/50 statement.
G
The context of the passage explains the verse. The need to have the verse explained to you comes from staring too hard at one tree while ignoring the forest.
I believe there are a number of reasons why the verse was translated as it was --- but, I will have to try to explain those later...
In view of those reasons - based on the context of the passage --- there was / is no better way for the verse to be translated!
Just because you don't see it - doesn't automatically mean that it is not 'perfect'.
There is no error in that verse.
I believe there are a number of reasons why the verse was translated as it was --- but, I will have to try to explain those later...
In view of those reasons - based on the context of the passage --- there was / is no better way for the verse to be translated!
Just because you don't see it - doesn't automatically mean that it is not 'perfect'.
There is no error in that verse.
As with every concept, "inerrant" means different things to different people. Even with a standard dictionary definition (I know... which dictionary?) we probably wouldn't agree completely. Perhaps a better way to approach this is to give a definition of "inerrant" and then ask whether people believe that the Bible is inerrant according to that definition. Even then, people who vote 'No' might be judged as not believing in the inerrancy of Scripture generally, which would not necessarily be the case (actually, it would be fallacious, but it happens anyway... often).
That's also the problem with big surveys. I've participated in enough to know that terms are confusing. Quite often, I'll read a question, grasp what the intent is, and conclude that the question is poorly worded. A completely-unrelated example may help to illustrate:
A few years back, I was involved in a forum for toy car enthusiasts. Someone asked, "What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced?" I noted in response that the question could be read at least three different ways (all valid), and possibly a fourth:
What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (largest casting overall)
What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (scale models only, not fantasy castings)
What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (1:1 would be the size of the real thing, 1:60 would be 1/60th in length etc.) Even this can be read two ways, if people think that a larger denominator might be read as a larger scale. By the way, the answers would all be different depending on the interpretation of the question.
So too, when people read the word, "inerrant" they might think "every translation is completely without error", or more likely, a certain translation is completely without error. Or, they might think that the originals are without error. Or perhaps, that the Bible is accurate in all it asserts. Or that the Bible is an accurate record of what happened or was spoken.
Because the Bible does not, in itself, state that it is "inerrant" (using that word), I treat this issue the same way I treat biblical-sounding statements like, "God has infinite power". I believe it is scripturally sound to state that God's power is adequate for His purposes and His will, and is far beyond the power of humankind and of the rest of creation.
So... waddayamean by "inerrant"?
That's also the problem with big surveys. I've participated in enough to know that terms are confusing. Quite often, I'll read a question, grasp what the intent is, and conclude that the question is poorly worded. A completely-unrelated example may help to illustrate:
A few years back, I was involved in a forum for toy car enthusiasts. Someone asked, "What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced?" I noted in response that the question could be read at least three different ways (all valid), and possibly a fourth:
What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (largest casting overall)
What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (scale models only, not fantasy castings)
What is the largest scale model that Matchbox has produced? (1:1 would be the size of the real thing, 1:60 would be 1/60th in length etc.) Even this can be read two ways, if people think that a larger denominator might be read as a larger scale. By the way, the answers would all be different depending on the interpretation of the question.
So too, when people read the word, "inerrant" they might think "every translation is completely without error", or more likely, a certain translation is completely without error. Or, they might think that the originals are without error. Or perhaps, that the Bible is accurate in all it asserts. Or that the Bible is an accurate record of what happened or was spoken.
Because the Bible does not, in itself, state that it is "inerrant" (using that word), I treat this issue the same way I treat biblical-sounding statements like, "God has infinite power". I believe it is scripturally sound to state that God's power is adequate for His purposes and His will, and is far beyond the power of humankind and of the rest of creation.
So... waddayamean by "inerrant"?
I believe that the KJV is inerrant word of God as keeping the truth in His words for us to follow Him by and discern good & evil by in these latter days where faith is hard to find rather than by Dr. Boice's definition of what inerrant means as quoted again below.. if that was his actual quoted definition from your OP.
S
depends on who is asking
when it's you, there could be 3 or 4 answers
thing is, it depends on whose inerrant it is
or whether or not you have decided that it's so
like I said, word games and you usually invent the game
I've had my words twisted by you before.. it's not really clever of you
so, no thanks
Last edited:
B
The commentary isn't saying anything about it not being in error, and in fact he is quoting a different story that isn't the same.
In Jeremiah 32: 7-12 there is no mentioning of thirty pieces of silver it's talking about seventeen pieces of silver in that account is completely different than the other account.
The more proper versions are the ones that use spoken by the prophet, if a translater doesn't have to nerves to fix it, then just use spoken by the prophet there's no need in saying something that wasn't spoken by a person if it wasn't so.
In Jeremiah 32: 7-12 there is no mentioning of thirty pieces of silver it's talking about seventeen pieces of silver in that account is completely different than the other account.
The more proper versions are the ones that use spoken by the prophet, if a translater doesn't have to nerves to fix it, then just use spoken by the prophet there's no need in saying something that wasn't spoken by a person if it wasn't so.
depends on who is asking
when it's you, there could be 3 or 4 answers
thing is, it depends on whose inerrant it is
or whether or not you have decided that it's so
like I said, word games and you usually invent the game
I've had my words twisted by you before.. it's not really clever of you
so, no thanks
when it's you, there could be 3 or 4 answers
thing is, it depends on whose inerrant it is
or whether or not you have decided that it's so
like I said, word games and you usually invent the game
I've had my words twisted by you before.. it's not really clever of you
so, no thanks
When all modern Bibles and the KJV are not saying the same thing..... then discernment is needed. That means asking Jesus Christ to show which Bible version to rely on for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by in keeping the faith.
The lost books of the Bible were not considered accepted scriptures because it ran against the truth in the accepted scriptures.
So what happens when modern Bibles do not keep the truths in His words while trying to make an easier to read Bible?
If all BIBLES speak one truth in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speak what He hears, but yet only the KJV Bible keeps that truth in Romans 8:26-27 where the intercessions of the Spirit's are unspeakable from which even His groaning CANNOT be uttered....as verse 26 ended in truth... then the Other that searches our hearts Whom is Jesus Christ as per Hebrews 4:12-16, is the "he" that knows also the mind of the Spirit to give the intercessions of the Spirit's for the Spirit to God the Father by that throne of grace where only the man Christ Jesus is at... the only Mediator.
All the truths in scripture lines up in the KJV whereas ALL modern Bibles cannot say the same.
So just as those that agree that the lost books of the Bible are not scripture as no lie can be of the truth, then those same believers should apply that same reasonable & Biblical judgment when not all the scripture lines up with the truths in His words wherein the KJV does.
Is it any wonder why the world and the devil rages against relying only on the KJV? And yet they argue that it doesn't matter which Bible any believer uses... but they act like it is anathema to use the KJV as the final authority.
With such a mentality against relying only on the KJV, is it any wonder why and how Dr. Boice has found a divisive group of pastors? It is no wonderment to me.
The lost books of the Bible were not considered accepted scriptures because it ran against the truth in the accepted scriptures.
So what happens when modern Bibles do not keep the truths in His words while trying to make an easier to read Bible?
If all BIBLES speak one truth in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself but speak what He hears, but yet only the KJV Bible keeps that truth in Romans 8:26-27 where the intercessions of the Spirit's are unspeakable from which even His groaning CANNOT be uttered....as verse 26 ended in truth... then the Other that searches our hearts Whom is Jesus Christ as per Hebrews 4:12-16, is the "he" that knows also the mind of the Spirit to give the intercessions of the Spirit's for the Spirit to God the Father by that throne of grace where only the man Christ Jesus is at... the only Mediator.
All the truths in scripture lines up in the KJV whereas ALL modern Bibles cannot say the same.
So just as those that agree that the lost books of the Bible are not scripture as no lie can be of the truth, then those same believers should apply that same reasonable & Biblical judgment when not all the scripture lines up with the truths in His words wherein the KJV does.
Is it any wonder why the world and the devil rages against relying only on the KJV? And yet they argue that it doesn't matter which Bible any believer uses... but they act like it is anathema to use the KJV as the final authority.
With such a mentality against relying only on the KJV, is it any wonder why and how Dr. Boice has found a divisive group of pastors? It is no wonderment to me.