The Inerrancy of Scripture: (pages 90-104)
What does it mean that scripture is inerrant?
"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
When we say we live about a mile from our school, we are telling the truth even if we actually live precisely 1.284 miles away. The same goes for the Bible in terms of preciseness.
Inerrancy has to do with truthfulness, not with the degree of precision with which events are reported.
People often retort that the Bible is only authoritative for "Faith and Practice," and not for scientific facts or historical details.
However, that is a slippery slope of saying that we humans know better than God and he is wrong in this and that issue.
The Bible repeats a lot that all scripture is true, pure, perfect, etc. (2 Tim 3:16, Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:96, Proverbs 30:5)
The Disciples in the New Testament were quick to believe so many details historically from the Old Testament, which should lead us to also not just believe what is useful for "faith and practice" but also everything written in the scriptures.
"It is better to say that the whole purpose of Scripture is to say everything it does say, on whatever subject. Every one of God's words in Scripture was deemed by him to be important for us."
"Everything in scripture is there because God intended it to be there: God does not say anything unintentionally!"
Next argument:
"We have no Inerrant manuscripts, therefore talk about an inerrant Bible is misleading."
But in 99 percent of the time, even if we don't have the original letters written by Moses, Paul, or Peter, we have confidence in what they said. And if there was some variation in manuscripts, that is clearly written in Bibles.
"If we have mistakes in the copies, (as we do), then these are only the mistakes of men. But if we have mistakes in the original manuscripts, then we are forced to say not only that men have made mistakes, but that God himself made a mistake and spoke falsely. This we cannot do."
Another argument: "The Biblical writers "accomodated" their messages in minor details to to the false ideas current in their day, and affirmed or taught those ideas in an incidental way."
i.e. the argument says that probably the disciples or old testament prophets made some cultural lies as they were writing because otherwise their message wouldn't be accepted.
This would mean that God is acting contrary to his character as an "unlying God." And hello, God is the Lord of the human language, he can surely find a way to speak to people over the span of time in a way that is truthful. Truth always rings true...always.
"THIS OBJECTION, thus at root misunderstands the purity and unity of God as they affect all of his words and deeds." Wow.
Paul says we should put away falsehood and speak the truth with one another. If indeed God had intentionally allowed falsehoods in order to enhance communication, then we have a big problem. Should we then do that too in our daily lives?
Next argument: There are some clear errors in the Bible.
Please show me where such errors are. IF we believe that the Bible is indeed inerrant, we should be eager and certainly not afraid to inspect these texts in minute detail. Read the text in context, read commentaries on the issue, and often in turns out that there is a solution to the difficulty.
Often we don't have the tools to read the text and understand it to see that indeed it is not an inerrancy but a misunderstanding on our part.
If we deny inerrancy:
1. we have a serious moral problem: may we imitate God and intentionally lie in small matters also?
2. Can we really trust God in anything he says?
3. we make our own human minds a higher standard of truth than God's word itself.
4. If we deny inerrancy, then we must also say the Bible is wrong not only in minor details but also in some of it's doctrines as well. (i.e. reliability of God's word and his truthfulness.)
Some interesting closing questions:
1. How can Jehovah's witnesses say that the Bible is inerrant while they themselves have so many false teachings?
2. Should belief in inerrancy be a requirement for holding church office, membership, teaching?
What does it mean that scripture is inerrant?
"The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact."
i.e. the Bible always tells the truth.
When we say we live about a mile from our school, we are telling the truth even if we actually live precisely 1.284 miles away. The same goes for the Bible in terms of preciseness.
Inerrancy has to do with truthfulness, not with the degree of precision with which events are reported.
People often retort that the Bible is only authoritative for "Faith and Practice," and not for scientific facts or historical details.
However, that is a slippery slope of saying that we humans know better than God and he is wrong in this and that issue.
The Bible repeats a lot that all scripture is true, pure, perfect, etc. (2 Tim 3:16, Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:96, Proverbs 30:5)
The Disciples in the New Testament were quick to believe so many details historically from the Old Testament, which should lead us to also not just believe what is useful for "faith and practice" but also everything written in the scriptures.
"It is better to say that the whole purpose of Scripture is to say everything it does say, on whatever subject. Every one of God's words in Scripture was deemed by him to be important for us."
"Everything in scripture is there because God intended it to be there: God does not say anything unintentionally!"
Next argument:
"We have no Inerrant manuscripts, therefore talk about an inerrant Bible is misleading."
But in 99 percent of the time, even if we don't have the original letters written by Moses, Paul, or Peter, we have confidence in what they said. And if there was some variation in manuscripts, that is clearly written in Bibles.
"If we have mistakes in the copies, (as we do), then these are only the mistakes of men. But if we have mistakes in the original manuscripts, then we are forced to say not only that men have made mistakes, but that God himself made a mistake and spoke falsely. This we cannot do."
Another argument: "The Biblical writers "accomodated" their messages in minor details to to the false ideas current in their day, and affirmed or taught those ideas in an incidental way."
i.e. the argument says that probably the disciples or old testament prophets made some cultural lies as they were writing because otherwise their message wouldn't be accepted.
This would mean that God is acting contrary to his character as an "unlying God." And hello, God is the Lord of the human language, he can surely find a way to speak to people over the span of time in a way that is truthful. Truth always rings true...always.
"THIS OBJECTION, thus at root misunderstands the purity and unity of God as they affect all of his words and deeds." Wow.
Paul says we should put away falsehood and speak the truth with one another. If indeed God had intentionally allowed falsehoods in order to enhance communication, then we have a big problem. Should we then do that too in our daily lives?
Next argument: There are some clear errors in the Bible.
Please show me where such errors are. IF we believe that the Bible is indeed inerrant, we should be eager and certainly not afraid to inspect these texts in minute detail. Read the text in context, read commentaries on the issue, and often in turns out that there is a solution to the difficulty.
Often we don't have the tools to read the text and understand it to see that indeed it is not an inerrancy but a misunderstanding on our part.
If we deny inerrancy:
1. we have a serious moral problem: may we imitate God and intentionally lie in small matters also?
2. Can we really trust God in anything he says?
3. we make our own human minds a higher standard of truth than God's word itself.
4. If we deny inerrancy, then we must also say the Bible is wrong not only in minor details but also in some of it's doctrines as well. (i.e. reliability of God's word and his truthfulness.)
Some interesting closing questions:
1. How can Jehovah's witnesses say that the Bible is inerrant while they themselves have so many false teachings?
2. Should belief in inerrancy be a requirement for holding church office, membership, teaching?
No comments:
Post a Comment