Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Inerrancy vs. Infallibility

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
219 replies to this topic

#1
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

When I first wrote the OP it was obviously misleading since I got definitions from almost every single reply.  It was discussion that I was looking for.  So I will try again.

 

Inerrancy, as it will be used in this thread, means "without errors" and that includes ALL errors.

 

Infallibility, as it will be used in this thread (and is used by some denominations) allows for the presence of certain errors, chiefly (but not exclusively) scientific errors--allows for the possibility that most of the canonical authors shared an erroneous view of the cosmos: geocentric, flat, discus earth; pillars beneath; a vast reservoir of water below and even a vast reservoir of water above what we would call the ozone. 

 

 

So the question, which is personal-- how important is it that the Bible belong to the category of inerrancy?  Put another way, how might the other category threaten the Bible's authority?

 

To make matters even more contentious (and discussion even more lively) I will add another error which infallibility might allow--an error I had never even considered until entering this forum.....

 

.......How important is it that the New Testament authors handle other parts of Scripture with exactitude?  To give a concrete example--suppose Jesus Himself never questioned the historicity of the Jonah story, and YET objectively (from God the Father's perspective, and from the Son's perspective, but not from the Son Incarnate's perspective) Jonah was originally written as a fictitious tale conveying a moral?  How would that effect YOUR (keeping it personal) appreciation and reverence for Scripture?

 

This discrepancy between human authors and objective history can obviously be applied elsewhere--the historicity of the Noah story; or of the GEnesis account of creation: perhaps the author himself--let's assume Moses--thought he was reporting the event not only in a manner that was symbolic of other realities--I have maintained that the structure of Genesis and other elements are Temple motifs, declaring the earth to be God's temple--but also thought he was writing precise history (it really did happen in 6 days).  Suppose he was spot on about the former, but not the latter...?

 

Alright, I hope I have established the arena well enough to invite engaging discussion

 

clb


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 18 April 2014 - 11:07 AM.


#2
Omegaman

Omegaman

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Chat Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts

I admit that I am no expert, but the way I have seen these terms used is as follows:

 

Infallibility: Applied to people and their decrees: thinking particularly of the Pope here, he is said to be infallible in his decrees when acting in his office as Pope. I believe meaning that when he speaks to a doctrine or practice, etc. his authority is equal to scripture, because it is inspired by God, and without mistakes.

 

Innerancy: Applied to scripture, generally this means the scriptures as originally written. In other words, the actual letter that the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Rome, was inspired by God and is without mistakes. However, this does not imply to copies or copies of copies, which is all we have possession of. Here then, we hold that the bible is without error accurate to the degree it reflects the original autograph. This would not be the case in the translations we read, which are limited by the degree of accuracy that they have enjoyed during transmission across the centuries, and also limited to how accurately the thoughts have been translated into the language of the specific translation.

 

This definition or description of inerrancy, might sound like what we possess today is not reliable. There is a degree to which this has to be true. Howeer, there are reasons to assume that our translations are trustworthy, though some more than others. There are some who believe (without good reason in my opinion) that certain translations are not only perfect in translation and transmission (demonstrably a false notion) but also are inspired.

 

The bible has the same sorts of issues and questions of accuracy as other writings of antiquity, however, it is also in a class by itself, unique amoung ancient written documents in trustworthiness, due to reasons such as the number of manuscripts available for examination, the nearness (chronologically) between the manuscripts and the original documents, and the number of quotations of the original documents in other documents of antiquity which testify to what the originals or copies not far removed from the original said.

 

It is a huge topic which I can only touch upon here, but I hope this was helpful.



#3
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

I admit that I am no expert, but the way I have seen these terms used is as follows:

 

Infallibility: Applied to people and their decrees: thinking particularly of the Pope here, he is said to be infallible in his decrees when acting in his office as Pope. I believe meaning that when he speaks to a doctrine or practice, etc. his authority is equal to scripture, because it is inspired by God, and without mistakes.

 

Innerancy: Applied to scripture, generally this means the scriptures as originally written. In other words, the actual letter that the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Rome, was inspired by God and is without mistakes. However, this does not imply to copies or copies of copies, which is all we have possession of. Here then, we hold that the bible is without error accurate to the degree it reflects the original autograph. This would not be the case in the translations we read, which are limited by the degree of accuracy that they have enjoyed during transmission across the centuries, and also limited to how accurately the thoughts have been translated into the language of the specific translation.

 

Apologies,

 

I was not clear enough.  I was referring to the terms as they are used specifically with Scripture--having nothing to do with the Pope.  What i have in mind is the claim that canonical authors can write errors in Scripture and still be inspired.

And still not clear enough.  Many when saying Scripture is infallible they mean that in respect to doctrine and conduct, they are without error--but there may be errors in Scripture due to their ignorance, like errors of geography or cosmology.

 

clb

 

clb


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 07 April 2014 - 06:09 PM.


#4
Omegaman

Omegaman

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Chat Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,933 posts

OK. I have not personally ever heard the term infallible applied to scripture. Can the cannonical authors have med mistakes? Well, in the idea of innerency, I do not think so as far as intention goes, but that I my opinion.

 

I hold that the word of God, is not ink on paper, but his thoughts as transmitted from His heart to ours, the message that He wants us to know and understand. It this respect, if we were to somehow find an original autograph, and the author misspelled a word or had a grammar error, but the idea was never the less clearly transmitted, I think that it is possible that such an error, would not make the document erroneous. Most errors that we will encounter, are going to most likely be errors in our understanding, not in what God said or what his messengers conveyed. That being said, I suspect that no one has a perfect understanding of the word of God, never-the-less, that does not mean that all translations or interpretations are equal. Words mean things, and those words when understood or studied in the contest of the passage, the whole of scripture, the historical and local context etc, combined with other sound exegetical practices, will yeild a very reliable result.



#5
Openly Curious

Openly Curious

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,263 posts

well put Omegaman



#6
Qnts2

Qnts2

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts

Inerrancy and infallibility are terms thrown around and I am curious as to how Christians (or not, even) define them.

 

Here is a very rough and incomplete guess at both descriptions:

 

Infallibility, I think, is typically distinguished from inerrancy by the allowance of certain errors—normally scientific errors; perhaps even historical errors.  Never doctrinal or moral errors.

 

Inerrancy on the other hand, is (for me at least) harder to define and I invite correction.  I was tempted to say that inerrancy frees all intended meanings by the author of error.  Thus one example from this forum (which I can no longer find) sees in Isaiah 40:22 a modern view of the cosmos: we read there that the Lord sits upon the vault of the earth; some translate this “circle”.  Adherents to inerrancy hold that Isaiah conceived earth to be a globe. This would be rather far sighted and a sign of the Bible’s inerrancy, since a spherical earth was not held until later (although not as late as some have supposed: it shows up as early as Pythagoras and is assumed in the Ptolemaic model).  On the other hand, those who embrace infallibility might maintain that Isaiah conceived the earth as flat with a curved dome over head—the conception that comes to mind most readily by unaided observation (i.e stand on a plain and compare the flatness of the earth with the curvature of the sky).  Isaiah, in this regard, would have been in error; he thought of, and described, the earth as it was not—the theological truths communicated along with this error, however, will have been correct: theoretically, had he ever been corrected on the geography/cosmology, he would have been grateful for the lesson but waved it off as completely irrelevant to the point he was making..

 

 

But things might get a little more complicated...I think.  Under inerrancy (and here I am very ignorant; you can read the following as a question), an author might say something which, from his point of view, is in error, but from another point of view, is quite right.  The words he uses are true, though how he meant them are not.  Thus above, perhaps Isaiah did have in mind a flat earth under a dome—but the words he used to express this lend themselves just as well to a spherical earth: the Holy Spirit will have worked with the human’s words despite the human’s meaning.

 

Alright, corrections, thoughts, snide remarks?

 

clb

 

Interesting. I think of infallible would be applied to either people (falsely) or God. Infallible means to me, unable to fail. If God says He will do something, He will not fail to do as He said. Since God said a lot of things, promises, prophesies in scripture, and God is infallible, I think that translates to something like. God said it, I believe it, He will do as He said. You can trust Gods promises.  

 

Inerrant I would define as 'without error'. I do not believe translations are inerrant. But the original manuscripts given by God thru men, is without error/inerrant. God does not make mistakes or err.



#7
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

Inerrancy and infallibility are terms thrown around and I am curious as to how Christians (or not, even) define them.

 

Here is a very rough and incomplete guess at both descriptions:

 

Infallibility, I think, is typically distinguished from inerrancy by the allowance of certain errors—normally scientific errors; perhaps even historical errors.  Never doctrinal or moral errors.

 

Inerrancy on the other hand, is (for me at least) harder to define and I invite correction.  I was tempted to say that inerrancy frees all intended meanings by the author of error.  Thus one example from this forum (which I can no longer find) sees in Isaiah 40:22 a modern view of the cosmos: we read there that the Lord sits upon the vault of the earth; some translate this “circle”.  Adherents to inerrancy hold that Isaiah conceived earth to be a globe. This would be rather far sighted and a sign of the Bible’s inerrancy, since a spherical earth was not held until later (although not as late as some have supposed: it shows up as early as Pythagoras and is assumed in the Ptolemaic model).  On the other hand, those who embrace infallibility might maintain that Isaiah conceived the earth as flat with a curved dome over head—the conception that comes to mind most readily by unaided observation (i.e stand on a plain and compare the flatness of the earth with the curvature of the sky).  Isaiah, in this regard, would have been in error; he thought of, and described, the earth as it was not—the theological truths communicated along with this error, however, will have been correct: theoretically, had he ever been corrected on the geography/cosmology, he would have been grateful for the lesson but waved it off as completely irrelevant to the point he was making..

 

 

But things might get a little more complicated...I think.  Under inerrancy (and here I am very ignorant; you can read the following as a question), an author might say something which, from his point of view, is in error, but from another point of view, is quite right.  The words he uses are true, though how he meant them are not.  Thus above, perhaps Isaiah did have in mind a flat earth under a dome—but the words he used to express this lend themselves just as well to a spherical earth: the Holy Spirit will have worked with the human’s words despite the human’s meaning.

 

Alright, corrections, thoughts, snide remarks?

 

clb

 

Interesting. I think of infallible would be applied to either people (falsely) or God. Infallible means to me, unable to fail. If God says He will do something, He will not fail to do as He said. Since God said a lot of things, promises, prophesies in scripture, and God is infallible, I think that translates to something like. God said it, I believe it, He will do as He said. You can trust Gods promises.  

 

Inerrant I would define as 'without error'. I do not believe translations are inerrant. But the original manuscripts given by God thru men, is without error/inerrant. God does not make mistakes or err.

 

I agree that the term "infallible" is misleading when used by denominations to describe Scripture; perhaps it is not even the right term.  What I am really getting at is this, can Scripture be "inspired" and yet contain certain kinds of errors.  For instance, some scholars read Genesis 1 or parts of Isaiah and conclude that the ancient authors shared with their contemporaries a false view of the cosmos--a flat circular (disk) earth, enclosed with a dome above which has water even above it; as well as a subterranean waters beneath us.  As I understand the term, inerrancy cannot allow this to be--we are misreading the text.  If the authors describe the earth anywhere, they do it with scientific precision.  On the other side we have those who do not require that Scripture be "correct" in all its statements.  Only those concerned with faith and conduct.  I belong to the latter.  It seems many here belong to the former and get very upset by people like me, which is very confusing to people like me.

 

clb



#8
Hawkins

Hawkins

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 281 posts

If a witness in a court failed to provide the extract time down to a precision of milliseconds, will you consider his witnessing an error?

 

In a court, all witnesses provide the best of their witnessing for the Judge (and juries) to decide the validity. 

 

 

It's more about the precision scale acceptable of human witnessing in the court of God.



#9
Atwood

Atwood

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 360 posts
Let's take for a starting point that it is clear that the Bible is the Word of God and that God cannot lie.
Given the above, what does the Bible say about itself?

We note the frequent "Thus saith the LORD"s in the Bible. We note that the Lord distinguishes Himself from pagan idols by telling us that He predicts the future accurately (see Isaiah 40 - 50 here and there).---------


We note that "All scripture is out-breathed by God" -- by the Word of the Lord the Heavens were made, thus God-breathed is a figure of speech for God being the creator of the scripture, regardless of the human revealing process. ------------

And we note from 2 Peter 1:

"6 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there was borne such a voice to him by the Majestic Glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: 18 and this voice we ourselves heard borne out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 And we have the word of prophecy made more sure; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts: 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. 21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit. -----------

Then we zap over to Psalm 119, where a long exposition on the Word of God is supplied -- I commend your reading of that text. ----------
Just a few samples: ------------------

"You have rebuked the proud who are cursed, who wander from your commandments."---------

"I love your commandments above gold, yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem
all your precepts concerning all things to be right"-------------------

"Your word is very pure; therefore your servant loves it. -----------

"The sum of your word is truth;"---------------

"my heart stands in awe of your words." ----------

"Depart from me, you evil-doers that I may keep the commandments of my God"! -----------

There is no division into topics within scripture as if this subject is true and that is not. Of course the Bible does not have as its topic "physical science." Indeed, what we call science is hardly anything except mere human knowledge, fallible and ever changing. Nonetheless, I esteem all God's precepts concerning all things to be right. On the basis of the above, God's word is both infallible and inerrant, but I don't believe it is profitable to spend a lot of time arguing over the meaning of such terms.

Finally, remember that the Lord Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for setting aside God's Word in favor of human traditions. And when He said, "It is written," the argument was over. Scripture cannot be broken.

Edited by Atwood, 10 April 2014 - 08:25 PM.


#10
Atwood

Atwood

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 360 posts
It was posted: "OK. I have not personally ever heard the term infallible applied to scripture. Can the cannonical authors have med mistakes? Well, in the idea of innerency, I do not think so as far as intention goes, but that I my opinion.

I hold that the word of God, is not ink on paper, but his thoughts as transmitted from His heart to ours, "

Actually the word for scripture, graphē refers to something written on paper (or some other material like leather or stone). It was to this graphē that the Lord Jesus referred when he settled the arguments with the refrain, "It is written." It is that graphē which cannot be broken. It is the graphē which is God-breathed. Peter calls the writings of Paul graphē.

So far as theopneustos is concerned (God-breathed or God-outspired), it is not the prophet who is theopneustos nor the hearers or reader who is theopneustos, it is the graphē, the content written on paper that is theopneustos. Of course a child of God will figuratively write what he reads or hears on his heart. He will hide God's word in his heart.

Edited by Atwood, 10 April 2014 - 08:27 PM.


#11
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

It was posted: "OK. I have not personally ever heard the term infallible applied to scripture. Can the cannonical authors have med mistakes? Well, in the idea of innerency, I do not think so as far as intention goes, but that I my opinion.

I hold that the word of God, is not ink on paper, but his thoughts as transmitted from His heart to ours, "

Actually the word for scripture, graphē refers to something written on paper (or some other material like leather or stone). It was to this graphē that the Lord Jesus referred when he settled the arguments with the refrain, "It is written." It is that graphē which cannot be broken. It is the graphē which is God-breathed. Peter calls the writings of Paul graphē.

So far as theopneustos is concerned (God-breathed or God-outspired), it is not the prophet who is theopneustos nor the hearers or reader who is theopneustos, it is the graphē, the content written on paper that is theopneustos. Of course a child of God will figuratively write what he reads or hears on his heart. He will hide God's word in his heart.

Yes, I have seen you (or someone else) make this distinction before, but I am not sure how it alters things.

 

Yes it is the "writings" that are inspired--but they are "words" and these words were selected by men. Thus if the words on paper are "God breathed" then the words in the author's head were inspired--it goes from head to paper and must be inspired at both points of the process.

 

Compare the writings of Paul and we have a wide variety of styles, given his purpose for each one and the context.  We cannot reduce the authorial (human) contribution to a zero.  The authors are clearly involved; the Holy Spirit did not "override" them.

 

clb



#12
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

I think the bible can be absolutely true without being perfectly accurate.  The courtroom witness testimony is a good example of this.  I was searching a word on blueletterbible.com the other day, and the results brought up several passages with the words of Jesus.  Funny thing is, if you compare what Matthew wrote that Jesus said, it differs slightly from the same quote in Mark, Luke, and John.  Different words are used and phrases added or cut.  Here we have four testimonies of the same event that aren't recorded perfectly.  So who got it right?  Why would the Holy Spirit allow an inaccurate recording of the words of Jesus?  Does it really matter?  Not really.  The point Jesus was trying to make, the truth of the passage and intended message, is still intact.

 

It seems the Holy Spirit doesn't "edit out" every single error in Scripture.  Doesn't make it any less inspired.   :)



#13
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

I think the bible can be absolutely true without being perfectly accurate.  The courtroom witness testimony is a good example of this.  I was searching a word on blueletterbible.com the other day, and the results brought up several passages with the words of Jesus.  Funny thing is, if you compare what Matthew wrote that Jesus said, it differs slightly from the same quote in Mark, Luke, and John.  Different words are used and phrases added or cut.  Here we have four testimonies of the same event that aren't recorded perfectly.  So who got it right?  Why would the Holy Spirit allow an inaccurate recording of the words of Jesus?  Does it really matter?  Not really.  The point Jesus was trying to make, the truth of the passage and intended message, is still intact.

 

It seems the Holy Spirit doesn't "edit out" every single error in Scripture.  Doesn't make it any less inspired.   :)

 

Sheniy, where have you been, I feel like I haven't seen your name come up on many threads these past couple weeks...

 

...of course, by now we know you and I are on the same frequency for many things...so, I really have nothing to add here.  But it was good to hear from you.

 

clb



#14
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

To make things a little more provocative here,

 

Is it possible that Jesus Himself had erroneous ideas: perhaps Jesus too thought the earth flat or the sun moved.  Would that tarnish the central truths of the Incarnation?

 

clb



#15
Donibm

Donibm

    Advanced Member

  • Members *
  • PipPipPip
  • 304 posts

Inerrancy and infallibility are terms thrown around and I am curious as to how Christians (or not, even) define them.

 

Here is a very rough and incomplete guess at both descriptions:

 

Infallibility, I think, is typically distinguished from inerrancy by the allowance of certain errors—normally scientific errors; perhaps even historical errors.  Never doctrinal or moral errors.

 

Inerrancy on the other hand, is (for me at least) harder to define and I invite correction.  I was tempted to say that inerrancy frees all intended meanings by the author of error.  Thus one example from this forum (which I can no longer find) sees in Isaiah 40:22 a modern view of the cosmos: we read there that the Lord sits upon the vault of the earth; some translate this “circle”.  Adherents to inerrancy hold that Isaiah conceived earth to be a globe. This would be rather far sighted and a sign of the Bible’s inerrancy, since a spherical earth was not held until later (although not as late as some have supposed: it shows up as early as Pythagoras and is assumed in the Ptolemaic model).  On the other hand, those who embrace infallibility might maintain that Isaiah conceived the earth as flat with a curved dome over head—the conception that comes to mind most readily by unaided observation (i.e stand on a plain and compare the flatness of the earth with the curvature of the sky).  Isaiah, in this regard, would have been in error; he thought of, and described, the earth as it was not—the theological truths communicated along with this error, however, will have been correct: theoretically, had he ever been corrected on the geography/cosmology, he would have been grateful for the lesson but waved it off as completely irrelevant to the point he was making..

 

 

But things might get a little more complicated...I think.  Under inerrancy (and here I am very ignorant; you can read the following as a question), an author might say something which, from his point of view, is in error, but from another point of view, is quite right.  The words he uses are true, though how he meant them are not.  Thus above, perhaps Isaiah did have in mind a flat earth under a dome—but the words he used to express this lend themselves just as well to a spherical earth: the Holy Spirit will have worked with the human’s words despite the human’s meaning.

 

Alright, corrections, thoughts, snide remarks?

 

clb

 

It's just play with words.

 

if I say the inerrent Word of God, it mean it in the context of it has no errors, and any error I think it has, there is an answer that we may not see (like the Crucifixion, which actually happened on a Thursday, not a Friday, seen in Scriptures but hidden from us for almost 2000 years).

 

If I say infallible, it's pretty much the same thing.  It is dependable and never fails.  Kinda the same thing as no errors.

 

It's all a play with words to seasaw between the two.



#16
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

Sheniy, where have you been, I feel like I haven't seen your name come up on many threads these past couple weeks...
 
...of course, by now we know you and I are on the same frequency for many things...so, I really have nothing to add here.  But it was good to hear from you.
 
clb


Hey. :) I've been browsing anonymously on my phone, mostly. I feel like discussions I jump into turn into debates that go nowhere, so I'm taking a step back and just observing for a bit. I'll join in again eventually.

#17
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

Inerrancy and infallibility are terms thrown around and I am curious as to how Christians (or not, even) define them.

 

Here is a very rough and incomplete guess at both descriptions:

 

Infallibility, I think, is typically distinguished from inerrancy by the allowance of certain errors—normally scientific errors; perhaps even historical errors.  Never doctrinal or moral errors.

 

Inerrancy on the other hand, is (for me at least) harder to define and I invite correction.  I was tempted to say that inerrancy frees all intended meanings by the author of error.  Thus one example from this forum (which I can no longer find) sees in Isaiah 40:22 a modern view of the cosmos: we read there that the Lord sits upon the vault of the earth; some translate this “circle”.  Adherents to inerrancy hold that Isaiah conceived earth to be a globe. This would be rather far sighted and a sign of the Bible’s inerrancy, since a spherical earth was not held until later (although not as late as some have supposed: it shows up as early as Pythagoras and is assumed in the Ptolemaic model).  On the other hand, those who embrace infallibility might maintain that Isaiah conceived the earth as flat with a curved dome over head—the conception that comes to mind most readily by unaided observation (i.e stand on a plain and compare the flatness of the earth with the curvature of the sky).  Isaiah, in this regard, would have been in error; he thought of, and described, the earth as it was not—the theological truths communicated along with this error, however, will have been correct: theoretically, had he ever been corrected on the geography/cosmology, he would have been grateful for the lesson but waved it off as completely irrelevant to the point he was making..

 

 

But things might get a little more complicated...I think.  Under inerrancy (and here I am very ignorant; you can read the following as a question), an author might say something which, from his point of view, is in error, but from another point of view, is quite right.  The words he uses are true, though how he meant them are not.  Thus above, perhaps Isaiah did have in mind a flat earth under a dome—but the words he used to express this lend themselves just as well to a spherical earth: the Holy Spirit will have worked with the human’s words despite the human’s meaning.

 

Alright, corrections, thoughts, snide remarks?

 

clb

 

It's just play with words.

 

if I say the inerrent Word of God, it mean it in the context of it has no errors, and any error I think it has, there is an answer that we may not see (like the Crucifixion, which actually happened on a Thursday, not a Friday, seen in Scriptures but hidden from us for almost 2000 years).

 

If I say infallible, it's pretty much the same thing.  It is dependable and never fails.  Kinda the same thing as no errors.

 

It's all a play with words to seasaw between the two.

 

Hello,

 

I am realizing that my OP is poorly phrased.  As the words are used by the denominations I have observed, it is not semantics.  Inerrancy is means without error; but infallibility allows for certain errors--mostly scientific.  It makes room for the possibility that most of the canonical writers shared an erroneous view of the cosmos--moving sun, flat, discus earth, pillars holding up the earth etc. etc.

 

My main purpose was to open up discussion regarding the importance of either, not to get definitions.

 

I will edit my OP, but thank you for your answers.

 

clb



#18
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,179 posts
The people do not define the Word as The Word has formed the people...
Perfection is arrival in truth and infallible and inerrancy dwell their...
Yet as here they only point to where they are at...

The person who searches here for what is only there is lost even to the purpose
of the search. I understand the movement of God through his Word with the fallen
world and to see the perfection of that Word in the movement
Matt 21:44
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken:
but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
KJV

The Word stands on the eternities of The Life that is contained within The Being God 'IS'...
When in s(S)pirit we come to the humility of brokenness and contriteness by falling
upon the precepts as undeserved and when one consciously looks from it's place of
keeping Col 3 and focuses rather upon fallen humanity to reach
conclusions... well I think you get the point! Love, Steven

Edited by enoob57, 19 April 2014 - 08:16 AM.


#19
Organic Medicine

Organic Medicine

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 103 posts

When I first wrote the OP it was obviously misleading since I got definitions from almost every single reply.  It was discussion that I was looking for.  So I will try again.
 
Inerrancy, as it will be used in this thread, means "without errors" and that includes ALL errors.
 
Infallibility, as it will be used in this thread (and is used by some denominations) allows for the presence of certain errors, chiefly (but not exclusively) scientific errors--allows for the possibility that most of the canonical authors shared an erroneous view of the cosmos: geocentric, flat, discus earth; pillars beneath; a vast reservoir of water below and even a vast reservoir of water above what we would call the ozone. 

Organic Medicine

Most of the old testament is not necessary for a belief in God,and while it adds to it ,apart from genesis . Jesus in 'saving us' opened up the way of knowledge of science to us. Until enough people were saved to the higher level,we would stay trapped in the' below' . When enough people were directly in touch with God's Light and Energy the whole of Creation became available to us .Some of course are stilll in 'darkness' ,not recognising the Light.Many christians among them,but mainly atheists whose darkness of mind canot comprehend,and put it down to 'progression',whatever that means; ie. matter is capable of advancing by itself
The answer is it is not important as the evidence is under our noses right now .God's creation is moving and developing around us . Wakey ,wakey !!!
So the question, which is personal-- how important is it that the Bible belong to the category of inerrancy?  Put another way, how might the other category threaten the Bible's authority?
 
To make matters even more contentious (and discussion even more lively) I will add another error which infallibility might allow--an error I had never even considered until entering this forum.....
 
.......How important is it that the New Testament authors handle other parts of Scripture with exactitude?  To give a concrete example--suppose Jesus Himself never questioned the historicity of the Jonah story, and YET objectively (from God the Father's perspective, and from the Son's perspective, but not from the Son Incarnate's perspective) Jonah was originally written as a fictitious tale conveying a moral?  How would that effect YOUR (keeping it personal) appreciation and reverence for Scripture?
 
This discrepancy between human authors and objective history can obviously be applied elsewhere--the historicity of the Noah story; or of the GEnesis account of creation: perhaps the author himself--let's assume Moses--thought he was reporting the event not only in a manner that was symbolic of other realities--I have maintained that the structure of Genesis and other elements are Temple motifs, declaring the earth to be God's temple--but also thought he was writing precise history (it really did happen in 6 days).  Suppose he was spot on about the former, but not the latter...?
 
Alright, I hope I have established the arena well enough to invite engaging discussion
 
clb


Edited by Organic Medicine, 19 April 2014 - 09:05 AM.


#20
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

Organic Medicine

Most of the old testament is not necessary for a belief in God,and while it adds to it ,apart from genesis . Jesus in 'saving us' opened up the way of knowledge of science to us. Until enough people were saved to the higher level,we would stay trapped in the' below' . When enough people were directly in touch with God's Light and Energy the whole of Creation became available to us .Some of course are stilll in 'darkness' ,not recognising the Light.Many christians among them,but mainly atheists whose darkness of mind canot comprehend,and put it down to 'progression',whatever that means; ie. matter is capable of advancing by itself
The answer is it is not important as the evidence is under our noses right now .God's creation is moving and developing around us . Wakey ,wakey !!!
So the question, which is personal-- how important is it that the Bible belong to the category of inerrancy?  Put another way, how might the other category threaten the Bible's authority?
 

 

Hi Organic,

 

This is a rather interesting take on the gospel--not sure I quite understand it.  You seem to think that Jesus' chief purpose was to come and 'enlighten' the human race, and primarily in the sphere of science?

 

By "God's creation is moving and developing around us" do you mean "evolution" (directed by God, of course)?

 

clb






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network