In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- 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.
GWH
The issue is not "harmonizing" Daniel or any other book either. We don't harmonize that which was not written with the intent of the writers to be harmonized with anything else. The compulsion for "harmonizing" is the most consistent indicator of support for pre-existing Dogmas that do not stand alone very well.
My investigations indicate that Daniel is composed of at least two parts written 400+ years apart. Thus there is some older part but most of the focus in on the later parts completed about 167 BC. After this date everything predicted by Daniel failed. It is easy to write "history" looking back. When you try to do it looking forward you fail. There in an entire religious community dedicated to explaining away Daniel's failed prophesies.
"Prophecy" After the Fact: The visions in Chapter 11 detail the history of the Greek Empire with extreme accuracy—down to specific battles, marriages, and treaties. However, this historical detail stops abruptly and becomes inaccurate around 164 BC. Scholars argue this indicates the author was recording known history up to their own time, making a "prediction" of the future.
Language and Vocabulary: The book features several Greek loanwords (such as names for musical instruments). In the ancient world, these words only became common in the Near East after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BC.The "Writings"
Canon: In the Hebrew Bible, Daniel is placed in the "Writings" (Ketuvim), not the "Prophets" (Nevi'im). Scholars argue this shows Daniel was written too late to be included in the Prophets section when it was finalized.
Historical Errors: The text contains minor historical inaccuracies regarding the Babylonian and Persian kings. Critics argue a real sixth-century court official would not have made these mistakes.
Some of the earlier parts of Daniel are written in Imperial Aramaic suggesting the impact on the Hebrew exiles in Aramaic speaking Babylon. However Aramaic remained an everyday language of the Hebrews after they left captivity as noted by the fact that Galileans of Jesus time still spoke Aramaic.
The issue is not "harmonizing" Daniel or any other book either. We don't harmonize that which was not written with the intent of the writers to be harmonized with anything else. The compulsion for "harmonizing" is the most consistent indicator of support for pre-existing Dogmas that do not stand alone very well.
My investigations indicate that Daniel is composed of at least two parts written 400+ years apart. Thus there is some older part but most of the focus in on the later parts completed about 167 BC. After this date everything predicted by Daniel failed. It is easy to write "history" looking back. When you try to do it looking forward you fail. There in an entire religious community dedicated to explaining away Daniel's failed prophesies.
"Prophecy" After the Fact: The visions in Chapter 11 detail the history of the Greek Empire with extreme accuracy—down to specific battles, marriages, and treaties. However, this historical detail stops abruptly and becomes inaccurate around 164 BC. Scholars argue this indicates the author was recording known history up to their own time, making a "prediction" of the future.
Language and Vocabulary: The book features several Greek loanwords (such as names for musical instruments). In the ancient world, these words only became common in the Near East after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BC.The "Writings"
Canon: In the Hebrew Bible, Daniel is placed in the "Writings" (Ketuvim), not the "Prophets" (Nevi'im). Scholars argue this shows Daniel was written too late to be included in the Prophets section when it was finalized.
Historical Errors: The text contains minor historical inaccuracies regarding the Babylonian and Persian kings. Critics argue a real sixth-century court official would not have made these mistakes.
Some of the earlier parts of Daniel are written in Imperial Aramaic suggesting the impact on the Hebrew exiles in Aramaic speaking Babylon. However Aramaic remained an everyday language of the Hebrews after they left captivity as noted by the fact that Galileans of Jesus time still spoke Aramaic.
I have studied Daniel and its prophecies extensively. Your use of the word "scholars" is quite unclear. You need to indicate what "scholars" you are referring to. You seem to claim that "scholars" in general (or maybe you mean the best scholars) wrote Daniel from the viewpoint of history. The "scholars" that I have read and trust do not agree with the "scholars" you are referring to.
dkontner:
I like when people pick and chose things like selected snippets from Hosea. What Hosea was there to declare of God's will was something we DO NOT want to hear.
Hosea condemned those who oppressed the poor because this cruelty broke God's covenant. To Hosea, mistreating vulnerable people meant rejecting God's love and law. He warned that wealthy leaders who cheated the weak to build riches would face severe judgment. Hosea condemned oppression in specific ways:
Dishonest Business: Hosea accused Israel of being like corrupt merchants who used false scales to trick and cheat the poor.
The Arrogance of Wealth: He warned that as people grew rich, they became proud and forgot the God who gave them their resources.
Loss of Loyalty: The prophet argued that oppression was a sign that the people lacked basic truth, mercy, and knowledge of God.He compared this spiritual failure to an unfaithful spouse. The leaders of Israel ignored the needs of the weak and pursued false gods. Hosea warned that this lack of justice and mercy would destroy the nation.
Seems to me, given what is happening in America, everyone would be looking at the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible for some clues on what matters to God... but then we would all stand guilty before God.
Chester:
John J. Collins: A leading expert on apocalyptic literature and author of the widely used Hermeneia commentary on Daniel.
Louis F. Hartman: Co-author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Daniel, famous for outlining the linguistic and historical evidence for a Maccabean date.
W. Sibley Towner: Author of the Westminster Bible Companion volume on Daniel.
Norman W. Porteous: Author of the Old Testament Library commentary on Daniel.
John E. Goldingay: Wrote the Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel, noting the book's theological focus fits best in the 2nd century BCE.
Very conservative biblical scholars to support the very late date of Daniel:
A primary list of notable conservative/evangelical scholars who date Daniel's composition to the late period includes:
John Goldingay: A prominent evangelical Old Testament scholar who notably concludes in his commentaries that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE. He argues this view does not diminish the book's inspiration.
Ernest Lucas: A conservative Baptist scholar who maintains that a late date (which views the specific visions as contemporary interpretations of their day) is still completely compatible with the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible.
Tremper Longman III: While often defending an early, 6th-century historical setting, this well-known evangelical scholar openly acknowledges the strong scholarly arguments for a late date and is sympathetic to the view.
Dr. Ralph W. Klein: An ordained American Baptist minister and Professor of Old Testament at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. He supports a late date, interpreting the apocalyptic visions of Daniel as offering hope during the Seleucid persecution of the 2nd century BCE.
Dr. John J. Collins: While not a Baptist (he is a prominent Catholic scholar and Holmes Professor of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School), his work, such as the Hermeneia Commentary on Daniel, is heavily relied on by progressive and academic Baptist scholars who support the late-date/pseudepigraphal consensus.
General Academic Consensus: Among modern, critical, peer-reviewed scholarship, there is a consensus that Daniel is a 2nd-century BCE composition. Baptist scholars who teach or study in secular universities or non-confessional divinity schools often embrace this consensus.
Prominent divinity school scholars who support a late date for Daniel include:
John J. Collins: Sterling Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Yale Divinity School. He is the author of the widely used Hermeneia commentary on Daniel, and wrote foundational works such as The Apocalyptic Visions of the Book of Daniel. He views Daniel as apocalyptic literature arising from the 2nd century BC crisis.
Carol Newsom: Candler Professor of Old Testament Emerita at Candler School of Theology (Emory University). She has written extensively on Daniel, focusing on the social and theological world of Jewish apocalyptic literature.
Klaus Koch: A leading German Old Testament scholar and professor at the University of Hamburg Faculty of Protestant Theology. He is a major figure in the study of biblical apocalypticism and supports the Maccabean dating of the book.
Louis F. Hartman: Late professor of Semitic languages at The Catholic University of America School of Theology and Religious Studies. He co-authored the well-known Anchor Bible commentary on Daniel, which firmly advocates for a Maccabean composition date.
John E. Goldingay: Senior Professor of Old Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. While coming from an evangelical background, his commentary on Daniel in the Word Biblical Commentary series accepts a complex composition process with final forms dating to the Maccabean period.
Dr. Tremper Longman III: Scholar at Westmont College (a Christian liberal arts college). He wrote the NIV Application Commentary on Daniel, arguing the text is an apocalypse written during the Maccabean revolt.
So who are your sources to the contrary?
- The word of Good is completely Inerrancy /Inerrant: free from error. The Bible is without error in what it teaches and absolutely trustworthy. IN the truth claims it makes. Some hold to a "limited inerrancy." Scriptures themselves make no such limitation.
- The word of God is infallibility/Infallible: Incapable of error. These terms are near synonyms to the previous pair above. However, some have redefined infallibility in applying it to the Scriptures. They take the meaning that Scriptures in incapable of failing in its ordained purpose of revealing God and his plan of salvation. This is true. However, it seems to avoid the debate about inerrancy by importing meaning that is not there in the words themselves.
I agree with the term : Plenary Inspiration. This term refers to the divine inspiration of the entire content of the bible. 2Tim 3:16
" All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in rigorousness."
My concept of ex nihilo is that it means God created something out of Himself.
Re one genetic source: AI says "Yes, in the sense that all living humans share a singular maternal line (mitochondrial Eve) and paternal line (Y-chromosome Adam)." That is close enough to one source for me from a source unaware of DNA.
Re the OT-NT, per Heb. 7:11-10:10 I see the process/history ending with completion/superseding rather than replacing.
Re bad Christians, no one achieves moral perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12), but no one who lacks divine love will reap eternal life with God (Gal. 6:7-8). Thus, a person who claims to be godly but who is behaving in an ungodly (unloving, untruthful) manner may be in one of the following categories:
a. a normally loving person observed during a rare moment when he/she acted uncharacteristically (Phil. 3:12-16),
b. an immature Believer, who is making progress–you should have known him/her a year ago! (1Cor. 3:1-3, Eph. 4:11-15)
c. a truthseeker who has not yet learned the correct interpretation of God’s Word (1Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:8-9), or
d. a pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, 1John 2:19), who may affirm morality while rejecting its divine rationale.
e. an apostate or heretic (1John 2:19, Heb. 6:4-6), who once believed but became blasphemous or foolish and ship-wrecked their faith (1Tim. 1:19-20).
IOW, do not allow Satan to trick you into believing his attempt to give Christ a bad name.
Over...
What should be evident is that what matters to God/Scripture is teaching His requirement for salvation.
I am not against chasing rabbits, and I have a thread about secondary matters/didachaic information.
I was merely reminding folks to remember what is most important as they carry on.
Very convenient definition. Ex Nihilo means "out of nothing." It does not mean and the words are not there to support creating out of Myself. What exactly is the "Satanic Trick" you refer to?
I really do understand the Dogma that the bible is inerrant but I do not see any biblical basis. Scripture is good for teaching (but few teach the same things) reproof (usually means proof texts proving all other Christians are going to hell) I see little correction in the lives of most Christians. I contend you could never pick one out of any crowd. How do you get "trained in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3 not rigerousness. That suggests it is "useful" not inerrant and any of the 4000+ Christian denominations will tell you that only their interpretation is "inspired" and your is not.
Moral perfection is and was never the objective. Conversion from self-interest, self-love, self promotion, self freedom, self control toward a life of change in the loving image of Jesus the Christ is the objective. We declare because we can't be "perfect" we can just sing some songs in our air conditioned cathedrals and listen to a periodic 35 minute sermon and we are good. That is all there is. No conversion, no surrender, no removing yourself from your throne.... just nod your head when the pastor prays and heaven is guaranteed. Easy breezy. One can not have their faith shipwrecked when the only faith you have is in yourself and your dogmas.
So what is your definition of nothing?
Tempting folks to think Christians behave no better than atheists.
That is possible, but not typical, as a thru e indicate.
My personal verdict in the Daniel case is that the last chapters were written by Daniel as claimed.
The objection to that raised by secular historians is based as far as I can see on their reluctance to accept that a prophesies such as are in Daniel 11 could be fulfilled with such accuracy.
I do not share their inhibition.
More interesting to me are the details of the predictions themselves.
- Robert Dick Wilson
- Credentials: Ph.D. from Princeton University; Master of 45 ancient languages and dialects; Professor of Semitic Philology and Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary.
- Key Contribution: Wrote Studies in the Book of Daniel, presenting rigorous linguistic proof that the book's Aramaic and Babylonian forms date back to the Persian era, not the Greek era.
- Edward J. Young
- Credentials: Ph.D. from Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning; Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary.
- Key Contribution: Authored The Prophecy of Daniel, widely cited as the classic mid-20th-century standard defense of traditional authorship and historical accuracy.
- Gleason Archer Jr.
- Credentials: Ph.D. from Harvard University; Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
- Key Contribution: Defended the 6th-century timeline in his A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, analyzing linguistic loanwords to demonstrate an early composition.
- Roland K. Harrison
- Credentials: Ph.D. from the University of London; Professor of Old Testament at Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
- Key Contribution: His 1,000+ page Introduction to the Old Testament evaluates archaeological finds to demonstrate that Daniel's linguistic syntax mirrors imperial 6th-century Aramaic.
- John F. Walvoord
- Credentials: Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; long-serving President and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary.
- Key Contribution: Published Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, a seminal work answering critical chronological and historical objections regarding Neo-Babylonian kings.
- H. C. Leupold
- Credentials: D.D. from Capital University; Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary.
- Key Contribution: Authored Exposition of Daniel, providing highly meticulous grammatical-historical analysis verifying an exilic origin.
- E. J. Pooler
- Credentials: M.A. from the University of Dublin; noted conservative Irish classicist and Old Testament exegete.
- Key Contribution: Provided comprehensive structural critiques challenging late-date arguments from early higher-critical German scholars.
Charles L. Feinberg
Credentials: Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University; Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Dean and Professor of Semitics and Old Testament at Talbot Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Wrote Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord, bringing extensive Semitic language expertise to vindicate the predictive nature of Daniel's visions.
Andrew E. Steinmann
Credentials: Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Michigan; Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University Chicago.
Key Contribution: Authored the Concordia Commentary on Daniel, an exhaustive modern defense of the early date using the latest updates in Near Eastern history.
Paul Tanner
Credentials: Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; long-time Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at various international seminaries.
Key Contribution: Penned the massive, 800+ page Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (EEC) on Daniel, arguably the most comprehensive 21st-century academic work defending the 530 BC date.
Stephen R. Miller
Credentials: Ph.D. from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew.
Key Contribution: Wrote the volume on Daniel for the New American Commentary (NAC) series, matching archaeological updates to the physical details described in Daniel 1–6.
Joyce Baldwin
Credentials: B.D. from the University of London; Principal of Trinity College, Bristol.
Key Contribution: Wrote the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary on Daniel, a classic, widely read text demonstrating that Persian administrative terms fit perfectly within the 6th century BC.
Kenneth Kitchen
Credentials: Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool; Brunner Professor of Egyptology and Legal Scholar of Ancient Near Eastern Law at Liverpool.
Key Contribution: In books like On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Kitchen deployed unmatched ANE legal and linguistic data to prove Daniel's Aramaic could not have originated in 2nd-century BC Palestine.
Alan Millard
Credentials: M.A. from the University of Oxford; Rankin Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool.
Key Contribution: Published extensive epigraphical papers showing that the script, spelling, and presence of early Persian loanwords favor an exilic date over a Maccabean one.
Tremper Longman III
Credentials: Ph.D. from Yale University; Distinguished Scholar of Biblical Studies at Westmont College.
Key Contribution: Wrote the NIV Application Commentary on Daniel. While he allows for later editorial updates, he vigorously maintains the authenticity of the historical Daniel and the 6th-century framewor
Leon J. Wood
Credentials: Ph.D. from Michigan State University; Professor of Old Testament at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Authored A Commentary on Daniel, providing clear historical harmonization for complex figures like Belshazzar and Darius the Mede.
Bryan Beyer
Credentials: Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; Professor of Old Testament at Columbia International University.
Key Contribution: Co-authored Encountering the Book of Daniel and Encountering the Old Testament, mapping out clear evangelical responses to standard higher-critical claims.
J. Barton Payne
Credentials: Th.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Key Contribution: Wrote The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, constructing strong textual defenses for supernatural prediction in Daniel versus post-event writing (vaticinium ex eventu).
David E. Conklin
Credentials: Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary; independent historical-linguistic researcher.
Key Contribution: Authored highly regarded monograph-length papers systematically dismantling the linguistic claims of late-date proponents concerning Greek musical instruments.
Peter J. Gentry
Credentials: Ph.D. from the University of Toronto; Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Specialized in Semitic linguistics and textual criticism; has frequently published technical data supporting the archaic structural nature of exilic biblical texts.
Robert McCabe
Credentials: Th.D. from Grace Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: Published highly specific academic journal articles targeting and disproving the standard late-date literary assumptions of modern source criticism.
William H. Shea
Credentials: Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of Michigan; Old Testament Professor at Andrews University.
Key Contribution: Extensively published historical and chronological studies on the Neo-Babylonian to Persian transition, arguing that Darius the Mede is to be identified as Gubaru (the governor of Babylon).
Merrill F. Unger
Credentials: Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University; Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament.
Key Contribution: Maintained the 6th-century setting throughout Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament, linking Daniel's details directly with discoveries like the Nabonidus Chronicle.
C. Hassell Bullock
Credentials: Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion; Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College.
Key Contribution: Defended the early date in An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, emphasizing the canonical placement and the theological trajectory of the exilic period.
David M. Fouts
Credentials: Th.D. in Old Testament and Hebrew from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor of Bible at Bryan College.
Key Contribution: Contributed critical research examining large numbers used in ancient Near Eastern census and military reports, removing perceived historical hyperbole from Daniel's early date.
Bruce Waltke
Credentials: Ph.D. from Harvard University; Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament at Regent College and Reformed Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: While focusing heavily on Old Testament theology, Waltke has consistently affirmed the structural integrity of conservative dating for the core exilic prophets.
Eugene H. Merrill
Credentials: Ph.D. from Columbia University; Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Key Contribution: In his Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, he treats the timelines and accounts in the book of Daniel as concrete historical bedrock for 6th-century Israelite history.
Charles Dyer
Credentials: Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary; Professor and Provost at Moody Bible Institute.
Key Contribution: Contributed conservative analysis for the Bible Knowledge Commentary on Daniel, utilizing structural geography to confirm Babylon's layout as described in the text.
John C. Whitcomb
Credentials: Th.D. from Grace Theological Seminary; Professor of Old Testament and Theology.
Key Contribution: Authored Darius the Mede, a highly focused historical study offering a viable chronological framework for Daniel 6 under Cyrus the Great's early rule.
James B. Jordan
Credentials: D.Litt. from the Central School of Religion; Director of Biblical Horizons.
Key Contribution: Published The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on Daniel, providing a highly specialized preterist-historical integration that explicitly depends on the 530 BC timeline to hold structural cohesion.
You’re just giving us more information about yourself: you’re telling us what subjects you find interesting and what subjects you don’t find interesting. You’re not making any contribution to the discussion about Daniel.What should be evident is that what matters to God/Scripture is teaching His requirement for salvation.
I am not against chasing rabbits, and I have a thread about secondary matters/didachaic information.
I was merely reminding folks to remember what is most important as they carry on.
Well, well, well if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black..
You were just doing the same thing in my thread Mr. BART SIMPSON!
Just messing with you
