S
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.
Your definition and the CSBI's are just two definitions among many. "The conservative evangelical stance" is a convention, not an unassailable fact. There is no central evangelical authority outside of the Bible. Individual churches and denominations are free to affirm the above... or not, without damaging their status as either evangelical or Christian.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the doctrinal assertion, just the idea that you can explain it and everybody either must agree with you or be inferior in faith or understanding. Criticizing others for not accepting a given wording isn't going to help.
[FONT="]inerrant[/FONT]
[FONT="]Synonyms[/FONT]
Authoritative, Flawless, Foolproof, Unbeatable, acceptable, accurate, agreeable, apodictic, unfailing, (Jump a bunch of synomyms) Reliable, Satisfactory, Satisfying, Sure, True, Trustworthy undeceivable……Which of these does NOT mean Truthful?
I would suggest that it's the fault of the OP for confusing the two, in this case.
Thanks, Dino. Yes I should have not mixed the two concepts, inerrant and inspired.
The question asked of the pastors is if the scripture is inspired by God or not.
My view is that in the original manuscripts there's no inerrancy. In other words in the Greek and Hebrews originals. I do believe that when it comes to translation, sometimes our words in English either don't do the word justice, is right on the mark or can be totally giving a different view than what was intended in the original.
I guess my shock at the article is that there were so many pastors that couldn't or wouldn't even say that God's word is inspired let alone inerrant. And if it was that bad then among major denominations how bad is it today? This was just kind of something I found unbelievable in the denominations that were mentioned.
I think we need to wake up and realize that we truly are in a war for the truth and we all need to know the word because the deceiver is out there in our churches twisting truth right and left and many are none the wiser.
I just wanted this to be a warning for us to make sure we are studying the scriptures and rightly dividing them ourselves.
If we don't believe that the word of God is inspired or that the original manuscripts are inerrant, why do they bother with Christianity at all. It must be that they're emissaries of satan to do his bidding and deceive God's people.
So do you all think that your pastors/elders preach that God's word is inerrant/inspired?
Nowhere did I claim that "inerrant" does not mean "true", "truth" or "truthful". What I'm getting at is that you cannot simply replace one word with the other, particularly in Scripture, and have it result in a completely-valid statement. The issue is not whether it is true or inerrant, but whether the two words mean exactly the same thing in every context. I contest that they don't.
Anyway, I think we understand each other; there's no point in ripping each other apart over it.
Nowhere did I claim that "inerrant" does not mean "true", "truth" or "truthful". What I'm getting at is that you cannot simply replace one word with the other, particularly in Scripture, and have it result in a completely-valid statement. The issue is not whether it is true or inerrant, but whether the two words mean exactly the same thing in every context. I contest that they don't.
Anyway, I think we understand each other; there's no point in ripping each other apart over it.
LOL Of course no ripping...Synonymous means, they mean the same thing. Right? So inerrant means truth......or....Without error?
Maybe the better questions would be:
Are all the Scriptures God-breathed?
And did men write the Scriptures as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit?
Are all the Scriptures God-breathed?
And did men write the Scriptures as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit?
The ironic thing is even God doesn't believe everything that is written in the bible about Him.
God told Job that what the guys said about God in the previous 30 some chapters was not true.
Everything in the scriptures is truly stated but not everything in the scriptures is a statement of ultimate truth.
Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the things of Christ to us that is in the scriptures.
We are just as dependent on the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ and His work in the scriptures as Mary was dependent on the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus in her womb.
Even the disciples who were with Jesus for over 3 years still didn't understand that He was going to die even though He told them 17 times in one form or other.
We can also read the scriptures through the lens of the Old Covenant mindset and not see Christ's true work and we can also read it through the eyes of our denominational and church teachings which may or may not be accurate.
God told Job that what the guys said about God in the previous 30 some chapters was not true.
Everything in the scriptures is truly stated but not everything in the scriptures is a statement of ultimate truth.
Only the Holy Spirit can reveal the things of Christ to us that is in the scriptures.
We are just as dependent on the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ and His work in the scriptures as Mary was dependent on the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus in her womb.
Even the disciples who were with Jesus for over 3 years still didn't understand that He was going to die even though He told them 17 times in one form or other.
We can also read the scriptures through the lens of the Old Covenant mindset and not see Christ's true work and we can also read it through the eyes of our denominational and church teachings which may or may not be accurate.
Sounds like Peter the denier who denied Christ as having come and pay the eternal wage of sin as the inerrancy of God, having it in respect to men .(his own self)
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mat 16:22
Is the mind of God Inerrant? Can the Holy Spirit keep his promise that he will teach guide and comfort? The man without the spirit of Christ dwelling in, cannot understand the word as the thoughts of God. They are foolish to them and they cannot understand.(impossible)
The Gospels are contradictory at this point. Each of them has been written to correct the others. So far as Christ’s return is concerned, we have simply got to get it into our heads that Jesus is never coming back and that all things are going to continue on as they have from the beginning.”
Each of them are written to correct us .I would suggest the person who challenges the inerrancy has already made up their mind. Just as did foolish Peter the denier. Did he repent when Christ turned him as did Peter?
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ1Co 2:11
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth, convicting of sin, correcting faults and training in right living;
"So inerrant means truth......or....Without error?" exactly or " incapable of being wrong" infallible.
As orginally written when inspired.....if God cannot keep his word unadulterated to the point that we can glean truth.....he is not much of a God.....and you know I believe he is fully capable of preserving his word and the truth's ability to be passed down from generation to generation until the end of the age.....
There is absolutely no reason to make such a statement. Rather the Gospels were written to COMPLEMENT each other. Just as the cherubim had four faces -- those of the lion, the ox, the man, and the eagle, Christ is represented in the Gospels in the same way, and one will see these aspects as shown below:
LION = KING (Matthew)
OX = SERVANT (Mark)
MAN = HUMANITY (Luke)
EAGLE = DIVINITY (John)
in zechariahs vision the faces on the four creatures are
Zechariah 10:14 "And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle."
which fits perfectly because The servant of isaiah wasnt yet sent at this time, yet the cherebim were the servants of God in Heaven. that reallly Helps something i have been looking into thanks for that. would show that the servant came from Heaven as Jesus said !!
Z
Zi
Guest
Nicodemus went to Jesus and asked him some things and Jesus said Unless one is born again you can not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.. Nico didn't understand " born again" because those words to him had only one meaning. Was Jesus lost in translation? couldn't He have made it more clear? He certainly knew Nico wouldn't understand him.. Words are not the problem. lack of asking the one behind the message is the problem