Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

is God's word unerring?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • is God's word unerring?

    i started this post because it seems that we were heading in this direction in eternal security vs OSAS.

    i will state that i believe in the accuracy and validity of God's word. I believe that God who is soverein is perfectly capable of maintaning and preserving his word throughout the generations. not to mention that we have over 5,000 original coppies which include the gospels and letters of the new testement that we can go back to in order to check for accuracy. pluss we have the find of the dead see scrolls with an almost entire coppy of Isaiah which when compared to the newer text shows that what we have right now is quite accurate.

  • #2
    As for myself, I could not believe in the Bible if I did not believe every word. I believe this because the Bible makes that very clear. If every word is not true, then it could not be God-breathed because that would mean that God either does not exist or is a liar.

    All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

    So simply put, yes I believe that the Bible is inerrant. When I challenge people to give me a so called contradiction in the Bible, it is always one that has been brought about through a misunderstanding of the writing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DeadtoSin View Post
      As for myself, I could not believe in the Bible if I did not believe every word. I believe this because the Bible makes that very clear. If every word is not true, then it could not be God-breathed because that would mean that God either does not exist or is a liar.

      All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

      So simply put, yes I believe that the Bible is inerrant. When I challenge people to give me a so called contradiction in the Bible, it is always one that has been brought about through a misunderstanding of the writing.
      i have a very interesting book that my daughter bought for me. it's about paradoxes in the bible. many of the so called contradictions are really paradoxes.

      another point about the bible being unerring is that you either have to believe the whole thing to be true. or throw the whole thing out as being unreliable. a person can not pick and choose what they want to believe.

      Comment


      • #4
        Good points - good thread! Here's a question - are unerring and inerrant synonymous?!?

        Comment


        • #5
          As far as I know, unerring is a state of being accurate. If you are unerring then you are a person that is accurate consistently.

          If you are inerrant, then you are incapable of being inaccurate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
            Good points - good thread! Here's a question - are unerring and inerrant synonymous?!?
            nerriam-websters
            unerring- committing no error

            dictionary.com
            inerrant- free from error, infallible.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'd have to look back in my seminary notes to remember the subtle distinction between the two.

              There are evangelicals who would maintain "inerrant in the original" which give them the flexibility to recognize that some of the greek words are hard to determine with 100% precision, marked grades A-D and that textual scholars have to figure out what the original word is most likely.

              There are a few words (such as direct object pronouns that could be singular or plural) where the witness of the tradition supports both, and as such is graded D. The original is very hard to determine from the plethora of manuscripts.

              I have a book in my library that seeks to explain the reasonings behind each grade, given by the textual scholars that have assemebled the most widely used greek text from the United Bible Society.

              It's called A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger. It's purpose is to explain the reasoning and the evidence why some reading is in the text and other credible choices are in the apparatus (footnotes).

              The problem I run into are those who belive their English translation is inerrant. I simply can't agree to that position.
              Pastor Chris
              EvangelismCoach.org

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mercychild101 View Post
                nerriam-websters
                unerring- committing no error

                dictionary.com
                inerrant- free from error, infallible.
                Now I'm REALLY confused! I thought unerring and infallible were the synonymous words (both meaning "not containing error") and that inerrant meant INCAPABLE of having mistakes in it (because of the nature and character of God - "all Your words are true") - so why do we describe Scripture as being BOTH inerrant AND infallible, if they mean the same thing?!? Maybe dictionary.com can tell us what infallible means - hopefully, it won't say "inerrant"!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  There are two ways to look at inspiration - first, that God transcribed His words, word-for-word, to the author, and every single word choice was important. The second, that God guided the lives of the authors in such a way that they were "inspired" to write something specific; the words were theirs, but the meaning behind them was what was inspired.

                  I personally believe the latter for a number of reasons:

                  1) We don't have any of the original documents (or even any from the first dozen generations of some books). If every single word was important, then God surely would have preserved them so that we could be certain.

                  2) The documents in the original languages have discrepancies. Granted, no real major discrepancies; the Hebrew scribes were very meticulous in transcribing the scripture; the culture demanded perfection. Regardless, there are still some minor differences over time, and if every word was important then this is still unacceptable.

                  3) Word-for-word importance makes translating into other languages impossible. A popular example that most Christians know are the 11 words for "love" in the bible that we translate into just one word. Agape, philia, eros, etc. Each represents a unique idea, yet from a plain English reading you don't get that nuance. Often, this nuance is evident in the context of the use of the word - it makes sense in the overall meaning, in other words, but not on its own.

                  There are certainly other reasons I hold to the latter definition, but these are the ones coming off the top of my head. I'm one who doesn't believe it devalues God or the bible by not holding onto a word-based inspiration; in fact, I believe it is a testament to His wisdom and foresight.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe.

                    My 'vote': I believe in the inerrant Word of God also.
                    If the whole Word isn't true, then how can a person determine which parts are and are not?!!
                    Thanks for starting a new thread on this subject.
                    g
                    "Gripped in the Hand of God"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Crawfish,

                      You make some excellent points.

                      I work in both English Speaking and Spanish speaking contexts. Your point about translations of the originals is dead on. Translations are at best translations.

                      Even among spanish versions, word choice and regional differences in Latin America make for different translations, much like the various English language versions available.
                      Pastor Chris
                      EvangelismCoach.org

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        According to Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology text, Chapter 5

                        Inerrant: Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything contrary to fact. In other words the Bible always tells the truth and always tells the truth in everything it talks about.

                        Infallibile: Scripture is not able to lead us astray in matters of faith and practice. This allows for possible false statements or mis-statements, or transmission edits in matters of minor historical fact.

                        Chapter 5, Systematic Theology, Introduction to Bible Doctrine.
                        Pastor Chris
                        EvangelismCoach.org

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
                          Now I'm REALLY confused! I thought unerring and infallible were the synonymous words (both meaning "not containing error") and that inerrant meant INCAPABLE of having mistakes in it (because of the nature and character of God - "all Your words are true") - so why do we describe Scripture as being BOTH inerrant AND infallible, if they mean the same thing?!? Maybe dictionary.com can tell us what infallible means - hopefully, it won't say "inerrant"!!!
                          it's ok. i get confused to. i was having trouble looking up the words. my collage dictionary didn't even have those two words in it. apparently if your a collage student you don't need to know what they meen. and my computer didn't want to load the online dictionaries. sometimes i really don't like my computer. but it looks to me and i may be mistaken that unerring means you make no mistakes and inerrant means you have no mistakes?????? feel free to correct me anyone.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well I gave it some thought... And I believe the subtle difference between unerring and inerrant is that inerrant leaves no room for error no matter our knowledge base. Unerring leaves room for error if we discover something 'new' in our knowledge base. At least that's the only thing I can think of, it there is an [important] subtle difference.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pastor_chris View Post
                              Crawfish,

                              You make some excellent points.

                              I work in both English Speaking and Spanish speaking contexts. Your point about translations of the originals is dead on. Translations are at best translations.

                              Even among spanish versions, word choice and regional differences in Latin America make for different translations, much like the various English language versions available.
                              if what you are saying is true then how can you trust or even teach the bible as being God's word? because if you change God's word in part or in whole then it is no longer God's word and you can't trust it or rely upon it.

                              they did a study a few years back and 80% of the population claimed to be Christians but only 5% believed that God's word was unerring.

                              very sad if you ask me

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X