Inerrant, inspired, infallible -- defined

(It seems that I am unable to use bbcode quote or url tags for some reason, so please forgive my failure to link to source material.) [quote]this is a test[/quote] [url=http://google.com]hello[/url]

Oxyrhynchus said, "The notion of inerrancy requires careful thought and careful explanation."

In the TCD Rules, it says, "We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God. We believe that the Scriptures hold supreme and final authority in all matters pertaining to not only faith and salvation, but also upon other areas as may the Scriptures touch upon."

May I take the first crack at the meaning of "inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God"?

Inerrant: without error.

Inspired: infused with God's influence, communicated from God.

Infallable: unable to err.

Is this a good start? What explanation is required for meaningful conversation with the irreligious about inerrancy?

spblat wrote (View Post): › (It seems that I am unable to use bbcode quote or url tags for some reason, so please forgive my failure to link to source material.)

Quote: › this is a test

hello

When you click reply and see the box, take a look below that at the check boxes.

spblat wrote (View Post): ›
May I take the first crack at the meaning of "inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God"?

Inerrant: without error.

Inspired: infused with God's influence, communicated from God.

Infallable: unable to err.

Is this a good start? What explanation is required for meaningful conversation with the irreligious about inerrancy?

There is a condition in the statement that may not be apparent, and that is that this is so for the Scriptures in its original form. We do not have this, but only copies of it, albeit lots of copies.

The statement is only meaningful for believers I think, and the force of it is not so much in the idea that every single letter is without error, but rather that it is written without tricks, or deception. That it is true and trustworthy.

So your suggestion: without error, or unable to err, I would consider to be not so helpful for the idea of the inerrancy of Scriptures. In fact it may not have been a good word to use in the scientific era because of those sorts of connotation.

You have posted in this forum: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:18 am Post subject:

Thank you Oxyrhynchus, I see now that "inerrant, inspired, infallible" carries connotations today that imply scientific truth, and what I feel you are saying is that this implication is counterproductive. I also understand you to say that the phrase should remind us that the Bible is not intended to be deceptive, that it is trustworthy.

I also have great appreciation for your observation that we do not have Scripture in its original form, and you seem to be allowing for the possibility that human beings have--inadvertently or purposefully--altered the original text as it reaches us today. Would you say that most people who believe in Biblical inerrancy agree with this?

Where I still have difficulty comes from the cases where the Bible makes a factual claim that--when read literally--sounds like a statement of fact testable by science. Or where it makes a moral claim that is counter to the practices of all modern Christians. What does someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy do with such Biblical claims?

(and thanks for the bbcode help.)

You have posted in this forum: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject:

spblat wrote (View Post): › Would you say that most people who believe in Biblical inerrancy agree with this?

I'm not sure about most people, but judging by current dialogues, most biblical scholars today accept this.

spblat wrote (View Post): ›
Where I still have difficulty comes from the cases where the Bible makes a factual claim that--when read literally--sounds like a statement of fact testable by science.

I don't want to generalise, I would have to treat them case by case. Yet on the other side of the coin, science is a useful tool, but I am not sure if science should be used as sole judge and jury to explain this existence. I think it is also plain that science will never assign such terms as "miracles" of God. Words like "never" are words we can use, but in science, the language of probabilities are used instead.

spblat wrote (View Post): ›
Or where it makes a moral claim that is counter to the practices of all modern Christians. What does someone who believes in Biblical inerrancy do with such Biblical claims?

Can you give me an example here?

You have posted in this forum: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:44 pm Post subject:

When I think of inerrancy, I fixate on such passages as Leviticus 24:16 or Exodus 22:18, which seem to be very direct and clear, yet modern Christians tend not to put them into practice.

I have been told that the New Covenant brought about by Jesus Christ's arrival heralded a change in the way the old laws were to be treated. And I have been reminded of Jesus's teaching of mercy and forgiveness in John 8:7. But I am hopeful that you can help me understand how to reconcile modern life with inerrancy in light of a) the fact that disputes persist about whether John 8:7 is authentic, to return to your earlier point; and b) Jesus's insistence in Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17 that he did not intend to do away with any of the Old Testament's laws.

How must one define "inerrant" in order to overcome conundrums such as this?

In fairness to Christians don't forget the thou's in the O.T. refer to Jews .It is they to whom the passages are addressed ,so it's my understanding it should be the Jews stoning people ,killing witches ,and killing breastfeeding Amalakite babies etc.

I can understand the Christian view point as quoted in this forums statement "We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inerrant, inspired, infallible Word of God."although I don't agree with it.What I can't accept is the apparent Christian believe that subsequently God failed to have; inerrant,inspired ,infallible Word of God, translations of the bible done.

You have posted in this forum: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject:

spblat wrote (View Post): ›
How must one define "inerrant" in order to overcome conundrums such as this?

Sorry that I have only time to make a quick/short reply but maybe this will help (if only to stimulate further thought):

The Law stands as is.
The Law stands as a measure or standard that God requires from creation.
If any person wishes, he or she can live according to that standard.
Fail, and death is its result. Pass, and life is its result.
Some of us understand that no one can pass, yet Jesus did pass.
Jesus passes but chose to take our results (death) in exchange, he died so we can have life. He fulfilled the Law's purpose.
Jesus as man, has the experience of being human, the only human who could meet the Law, yet he experienced death for us.
Death could not hold Jesus, he lives. Now a new Law is available for anyone who believe Jesus. The new Law is based completely on what Jesus has done and conditional upon it.
However, the old Law is still in operation.

So in this wider picture and scheme, the claim for errors in the Law is a misdiagnosis.

Everyone can claim to be under the new law, but not everyone does, namely, those who reject it. Therefore, the Law stands for those people. It is not done away with because is applicable for those people.

Apparently I have been debating Christians in the wrong venues these past few years. Oxyrhynchus, thank you for that generous and lucid clarification of Christian thought. It seems to me that what you are saying is that the Law of the Old Testament is still in full effect, but God understands that His creation--try as it might--is unable to unfailingly obey His Law. For Christians, Jesus is the way for the fallible (that is, all of us) to reach God. Accordingly, it sounds like you are saying that when I complain about OT passages that seem contradictory or objectionable (regardless of whether I am an earnest seeker or an atheist looking for chinks in the apologist's armor), I'm missing the point and should focus on acceptance of Jesus if I am to be saved.

I also think you have illuminated a belief whose importance I had not heretofore grasped: that the Law in the Old Testament had a larger purpose than was understood by the Jews two to three thousand years ago, which was fulfilled by the arrival of Jesus. Accordingly, if one is confused by a Law in the Old Testament, then one is called to seek guidance from Jesus on what to do about it.

Do I have it now?

spblat,

You were able to see some insights, and put it into words better than me. Does it seem coherent to you? Certainly your response is unlike the usual ones that come from those who hold to Atheism.

You have posted in this forum: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:08 am Post subject:

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › Does it seem coherent to you?

Indeed, this is the question I was struggling with: whether it is possible to look at the Bible as "inerrant" without accepting preposterous contradictions. You have shown me a way of examining Christian belief in the whole Bible that seems (to me) to invalidate charges that such belief is patently absurd by virtue of being self-contradictory. This approach is probably also useful for constructing a response to the usual atheist characterizations of the God of the Old Testament (Dawkins' famous quote, for example): a shrug and "God and His Law are what they are, like it or not."

Of course this doesn't mean that I'm on the path to belief (for a fundamental reason I will only share if asked, and only in a separate thread of another TCD member's choosing), but I do appreciate this clarification. I will share what I have learned with the folks I usually hang out with online and let you know if they come up with any reasonable objections that I have missed. Thanks Oxyrhynchus.

EDITED TO ADD:

Here's the summary I wrote for the other forum. I hope you will let me know if I have mischaracterized the argument.

Quote: › I am persuaded that belief in Biblical inerrancy doesn't have to be patently absurd by virtue of being self-contradictory. Here's how.

Step One. Accept that "inerrant" is not the same as "literally true, word for word." Define "inerrant" without a modern sense of scientific or factual truth. Instead look at the Bible as having been written without tricks or deception. Accept the Bible as true and trustworthy from a spiritual standpoint, but not necessarily as an ironclad historical record.

Step Two. Realize that "inerrancy" refers to the original text. Accept that we do not have scripture in its original form and allow for the possibility that human beings have--inadvertently or purposefully--altered the original text as it reaches us today.

Step Three. When considering apparent contradictions in the Bible (Leviticus 24:16 or Exodus 22:18, for example, and Christians' failure to abide by them notwithstanding Matthew 5:17-19 and Luke 16:17), realize that according to Christians the Law of the Old Testament is still in full effect, but God understands that His creation--try as it might--is unable to unfailingly obey His Law. For Christians, Jesus is the way for the fallible (that is, all of us) to reach God, because of the belief that Jesus accepted our punishment for us by giving Himself up for crucifixion. Accordingly, when non-Christians complain about Old Testament passages that seem contradictory or objectionable (regardless of whether these complaints come from an earnest seeker or an atheist looking for chinks in the apologist's armor), to a Christian they're missing the point and should focus on acceptance of Jesus if they are to be saved.

All this depends on a belief whose importance I had not previously grasped, which is this: the Law in the Old Testament had a larger purpose than was understood by the Jews two to three thousand years ago, and this purpose was fulfilled by the arrival of Jesus. Accordingly, Christians believe that if one is confused by a Law in the Old Testament, then one is called to seek guidance from Jesus on what to do about it.

Of course this doesn't mean that Christianity's truth has been proved (I have fundamental objections to Christianity separate from this topic), but I think this approach allows one to call the Bible "inerrant" without appearing utterly foolish, unless one fails to accept the importance of steps one and two.

You have posted in this forum: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject:

spblat wrote (View Post): ›
Of course this doesn't mean that I'm on the path to belief (for a fundamental reason I will only share if asked, and only in a separate thread of another TCD member's choosing), but I do appreciate this clarification. I will share what I have learned with the folks I usually hang out with online and let you know if they come up with any reasonable objections that I have missed. Thanks Oxyrhynchus.

There is someone close to where you are in the US that is currently working and collaborating with other academics to come up with a clearer statement about inerrancy on his blog. If you are interested in reading draft versions and dialogue on it I have the link.

You have posted in this forum: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject:

Probably well out of my league but I would enjoy taking a look at it, thanks.

moleowner wrote (View Post): › What I can't accept is the apparent Christian believe that subsequently God failed to have; inerrant,inspired ,infallible Word of God, translations of the bible done.

I think you are talking about accuracy of the copies. In which case I think it's safe to say that accuracy is around 95%. Now my question to you is: would there be a difference in your response to God if we had 100% accuracy?

You have posted in this forum: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject:

spblat wrote (View Post): › Probably well out of my league but I would enjoy taking a look at it, thanks.

His name is Michael Heiser here is the link to his blog.

Quote: › think you are talking about accuracy of the copies. In which case I think it's safe to say that accuracy is around 95%. Now my question to you is: would there be a difference in your response to God if we had 100% accuracy?

My concern is Christians claim the sciptures are inerrant and God given and then seem to be happy that God allows them to have a 95% accurate Bible . I think the bible is more than 95% accurate and will grant that Christians have done an honest human job in trying to copy and interprate them (since 400 A.D.).But you only have to argue with apologists using the K.J.V. to be told this version has faulty translations innn itttttttttt ooops sorry! I just got distracted then by one of those K.J.V. unicorns going past my window just now. I mean did God create all evil as he did in my KJV ? I knows God's thinking is beyond man's understanding (Isaiah somewhere) but I would have thought he would tell us whether to put the Johanine comma and the longer ending to Mark in our bibles as well as telling us where to put the woman taken in adultery story as it's been in different Gospels through the centuries.
My response to God would probably not be different if we had 100% accuracy of what was origonally written down .But if I knew it origonally came from God - now thats a different story.