The Inerrancy of the Bible

[Rhonda Lou]

I believe that it is important to know that God's word is inerrant, because I don't see why I would put my faith in somebody's word if I do not believe that word to be accurate. How would I know the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to me unless I knew the types of things the Holy Spirit would say? If I judge which words are correct, and which words are not correct, doesn't that put me in the place of God? Don't I creatie God to my own liking by deciding which words of His I accept and which ones I don't?

There is physical evidence out there proving that the Bible is inerrant, provable in any court of law. I did a study on this last year for my Sunday school and the results of the study are as follows:

Josephus writes of the Old Testament (OT), "It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of the prophets since that time." Ataxerxes was the king of Persia, ruling over Jerusalem around 450 BC and the Hebrew OT dates to that time. In 285 BC, Ptolemy Philadelphia commissioned seventy scholars in Alexandria, Egypt to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. It took them 15 years, but it resulted in what we call the Septuagint. The Council of Jamnia in AD 90 finalized the Hebrew Scriptures, but they were not codified until 916 AD into what is known as the Masoretic Text. Most English Bible Translations rely heavily on this Masoretic Text.

The accuracy of the OT can be proven from archaeology and history. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the Masoretic Texts were the best copies in existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls dated from 150 BC to AD 100

[Rhonda Lou]

I believe that it is important to know that God's word is inerrant, because I don't see why I would put my faith in somebody's word if I do not believe that word to be accurate. How would I know the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to me unless I knew the types of things the Holy Spirit would say? If I judge which words are correct, and which words are not correct, doesn't that put me in the place of God? Don't I creatie God to my own liking by deciding which words of His I accept and which ones I don't?

There is physical evidence out there proving that the Bible is inerrant, provable in any court of law. I did a study on this last year for my Sunday school and the results of the study are as follows:

Josephus writes of the Old Testament (OT), "It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly but has not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of the prophets since that time." Ataxerxes was the king of Persia, ruling over Jerusalem around 450 BC and the Hebrew OT dates to that time. In 285 BC, Ptolemy Philadelphia commissioned seventy scholars in Alexandria, Egypt to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. It took them 15 years, but it resulted in what we call the Septuagint. The Council of Jamnia in AD 90 finalized the Hebrew Scriptures, but they were not codified until 916 AD into what is known as the Masoretic Text. Most English Bible Translations rely heavily on this Masoretic Text.

The accuracy of the OT can be proven from archaeology and history. Until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the Masoretic Texts were the best copies in existence. The Dead Sea Scrolls dated from 150 BC to AD 100

[TheWarOnError]

I understand the validity of the Spirit in People inspiring them to prove the inerrancy of the bible. I also understand the need. To say that the word of G_d (the bible) is 100% accurate 100% of the time, I cannot witness to. I can, however testify to my own sin clouding my judgment often, and causing me to have painful misunderstandings that sometimes have taken years for my merciful, patient, and long suffering King to clear up in me. I must say that usually it is through the bible that I finally understand what he was trying to tell me. And usually he is showing me my misunderstanding about what he was trying to tell us in the bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

I've heard this so many times from your typical conservative Christian. Listen, as much as you want it too, reading these verses "in context" will not solve your problems.

The originals very well could have been inerrant (although most likely not), but we do not have the originals. We have copies of copies of copies, so on and so forth. Or there is another explanation as to the contradictions, these human writers simply messed up. It's just a mistake, and by understanding the rest of the Bible, we have the ability to decide what is meant in each passage. And with many of the above contradictions, I think the mood and situation would probably have alot to do with what the author wrote down.

But, like I said, the authors were human, and many things could have affected their writings. Also, in the early centuries of Christianity, the people who copied the Gospels and letters were NOT proffesional scribes. Usually, it was merely someone who was able to write (and sometimes they could barely do that!). These copies were made by people with their own theological agendas, people who were tired, people who had a hard time paying attention.

What it comes down to is your trust in God. If you believe God kept the Bible free from mistakes when dealing with important doctrines or important historical events, then why can't we trust the Bible? We do have the ability to analyze the Scripture, to look into it and figure out where mistakes are and where there are no mistakes. It is possible! We are smart people, and God knew that!

Well, that's my two cents. I'm sure this won't go over very well, but these "mistakes" don't affect my relationship with God and His Son. He is still there, and He is still God.

Sorry to jump in on this deep topic with such a small opinion, but I think it is important as it is my belief that my viewpoint is Holy Spirit inspired.

Believe it or not, some believers do not concern themselves with the inerrancy of the bible. I happen to be one of them. The thing that concerns me is if I am able hear and understand the voice of my King speaking through my sin and pride filter.

TWOE

Don't be sorry! It is NOT a small opinion.

My viewpoint is also Holy Spirit inspired; as I believe all Christian viewpoints should be.

The Holy Spirit speaks to me through God's Word, and I do my best to let HIM choose which words are most important for my life.

I do believe God inspired humans to write the Bible, but I don't believe the writers got it 100% right 100% of the time. Why? Because they are human. Where humans are involved emotions are involved, and emotions can cloud someone's interpretation and judgment.

As has already been said, throughout time, as we know it, man has been translating the Word of God into easier reading material. Yes, I do believe it was originally written by men as they were inspired by God, but they were still humans who were capable of making mistakes. And, the Bible has been translated so many times that I just can't believe there are no translation errors. It has been translated into other languages, and it has been paraphrased so many times that I am very thankful for the Holy Spirit who witnesses to my spirit as to what God wants for my life.

The problem with your above-logic is that it is left up to you asd the reader to decide which parts of the Scripture you think is in error or the early writers didn't get quite right. Usually this logic is subject to the whims of the reader. If someone approves of homosexuality, then they will naturally conclude that the early writers didn't "get it right." Any time the Bible causes offense to one's personal belief, the path of least resistance is to claim (despite having no evidentiary support) that it must be a translation error. It demonsrates a lack of knowledge of history and how the manuscripts were handled.

What your faith lacks is the belief that God is not subservient to man's frailties. The fact that is, God being omnipotent is capable of preserving His Word in spite of human weakness and shortcomings.

Furthermore, the translation issue is irrelevant where innerrancy is concerned, as not ONE translation has EVER removed or threatened, or altered the prinicples and doctrines of the Christian faith.

There is more historical/manuscript evidence for the Bible than for any other ancient writing.

I am sure you mean well, but you really don't have the logical or factual platform to assert that the Bible flawed. In fact, not one person challenged who claims that the Bible is full of errors can provide a shred of manuscript evidence to support that assertion. It is really a lack of faith to make the assertions you make.

[Guest shiloh357]

Sorry to jump in on this deep topic with such a small opinion, but I think it is important as it is my belief that my viewpoint is Holy Spirit inspired.

Believe it or not, some believers do not concern themselves with the inerrancy of the bible. I happen to be one of them. The thing that concerns me is if I am able hear and understand the voice of my King speaking through my sin and pride filter.

TWOE

Innerrancy is a major issue and one that should concern every believer. Without a 100% doctrinally accurate Bible, we have no accurate standard for measuring sin. God does not speak to you through your sin and pride filter. He speaks to you through the Word of God. It is God's revelation to man.

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

The problem with your above-logic is that it is left up to you asd the reader to decide which parts of the Scripture you think is in error or the early writers didn't get quite right. Usually this logic is subject to the whims of the reader. If someone approves of homosexuality, then they will naturally conclude that the early writers didn't "get it right." Any time the Bible causes offense to one's personal belief, the path of least resistance is to claim (despite having no evidentiary support) that it must be a translation error. It demonsrates a lack of knowledge of history and how the manuscripts were handled.

This is actually true for EVERYONE; whether they believe inerrancy or not.

Everyone interprets scripture as they believe they are being lead by the Holy Spirit.

Everything we believe we believe by faith, and I choose not to have too much faith in man's interpretation of God's word for my life. That doesn't mean I am doubting or that my faith is lacking anything. It just means I choose to let the Holy Spirit (not man) interpret for me what is right for my life. God may use man from time to time, however it is ultimately the Holy Spirit doing the interpretting. Do I interpret right all the time? No! Why? Because I am human, and God does have to correct me ocassionally. That doesn't make me better or worse. It just makes me a human who is trying to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling.

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem with your above-logic is that it is left up to you asd the reader to decide which parts of the Scripture you think is in error or the early writers didn't get quite right. Usually this logic is subject to the whims of the reader. If someone approves of homosexuality, then they will naturally conclude that the early writers didn't "get it right." Any time the Bible causes offense to one's personal belief, the path of least resistance is to claim (despite having no evidentiary support) that it must be a translation error. It demonsrates a lack of knowledge of history and how the manuscripts were handled.

This is actually true for EVERYONE; whether they believe inerrancy or not.

Everyone interprets scripture as they believe they are being lead by the Holy Spirit.

Well, not really.

[Guest lovinghim4ever]

The problem with your above-logic is that it is left up to you asd the reader to decide which parts of the Scripture you think is in error or the early writers didn't get quite right. Usually this logic is subject to the whims of the reader. If someone approves of homosexuality, then they will naturally conclude that the early writers didn't "get it right." Any time the Bible causes offense to one's personal belief, the path of least resistance is to claim (despite having no evidentiary support) that it must be a translation error. It demonsrates a lack of knowledge of history and how the manuscripts were handled.

This is actually true for EVERYONE; whether they believe inerrancy or not.

Everyone interprets scripture as they believe they are being lead by the Holy Spirit.

Well, not really.

Well, yes, really, because everyone interprets the Bible as they feel it relates to their own lives.

You may believe one scripture means one thing when I may believe it means something else.

2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

[Guest shiloh357]

Well, yes, really, because everyone interprets the Bible as they feel it relates to their own lives.

You may believe one scripture means one thing when I may believe it means something else.

2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

That is not the issue being raised in this thread. We are not talking about how one person sees a verse or passage versus how another person views it. We are discussing the fact that some people see the Bible as full of errrors and for that reason, they are not basing their views on the Holy Spirit, but upon the parts of the Bible they, according to their subjective, unsubstantiated, nonevidentiary whims decide which parts of the Bible they think are true.

As for the quote from Peter. Peter is simply saying that the Bible is not the product the of the impulse, motivation, imagination or private agenda of the prophets, but that they received their words from the Holy Spirit. He is not talking about how readers interpret the Bible.

[meforevidence]

There is more than one answer for the texts you have given.

1. Yes, indeed there are contradictions you have listed, but I have found that by going back to the most ancient texts and not the modern ones based on the late Masoretic text (close to 900 A.D.) there are far less contradictions. I refer to the LXX and the Peshitta as well as a few early Greeks written after the Syriac Peshitta such as the Vaticanus and Sinai Text.

2. The second answer is looking at the context. Sometimes we pick and choose verses and when we leave behind the context, it changes everything. For example. The Bible says

Edited October 3, 2007 by meforevidence