Is the bible inerrant?

[1voice]

Originally Posted by Traverse

Salutations to all.

In a recent thread the subject of the bible being inerrant came up. It was shared by a participant in that thread that it might be more suitable to have a new thread on the subject.

So what do you think? I understand what the catholic church teaches on the matter, that it is inerrant, and I also understand that many denominations believe such as well. But it is certainly the habit of some to consider it a product of its time, a book written by infallible men about their experiences with God and nothing more.

I do not see the logic in believing in God when you learn from Him in a book that you do not trust. I see those who suggest that the bible is not inerrant, yet able to derive teaching from it where they see fit, as an unjustifiable means of gaining knowledge. I do not understand how they discern what to dismiss in the word and what to hold fast to.

Any thoughts and opinions?

Thank you.

My view is that the entire focus of the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Various writers wrote of events in the New Testament from their point of view. The specific/minor details of their accounts may differ simply based on their personal experience. That in no way negates the inerrancy of the story or the central purpose of the narrative. What I have seen is that some people would pan the entire Bible based on the narrative written from different perspectives. That sort of logic would mean that almost every court testimony would be worthless.

[batman1973]

This can be a slippery slope if people start saying only certain parts of the bible are inerrant. To do this you risk something like this:
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly"-Joseph Smith, Jr. (and we all know what happened with that)

[Calgar]

It is inerrant.

If a person believes that even one sentence is incorrect, how can they believe any of it?

[SteveVH]

Originally Posted by 1voice

My view is that the entire focus of the Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ. Various writers wrote of events in the New Testament from their point of view. The specific/minor details of their accounts may differ simply based on their personal experience. That in no way negates the inerrancy of the story or the central purpose of the narrative. What I have seen is that some people would pan the entire Bible based on the narrative written from different perspectives. That sort of logic would mean that almost every court testimony would be worthless.

I couldn't agree more. The New Testament is hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New. Even the same person may explain a truth differently depending upon his audience. Two people will have a different perspective of the same event yet still speak the truth about that event.

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by onemangang

Sounds nice, but talk to many of them about Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Anglicans, and they will commence to bashing. Interestingly enough, all the "faults" they point out in those aforementioned Traditions, are the seemingly Catholic Traditions. Infant baptism, structured Liturgy, Ecclesiastical polity, Eucharistic Confection, Stained glass windows, Stations of the Cross, the sign of the Cross, Vestments and anything else that smacks of the Catholic Church.

It's almost like a drive by shooting on the Catholic Church, those that are standing a bit close, get caught in the crossfire unintentionally!

Probably not so unintentional as one might think.

Jon

[Marie_Gregg]

Originally Posted by po18guy

My point is that Jesus was and is a Jew, born of a Jewess, raised under Jewish law, and sent to the lost sheep of Israel. The early Church was Jewish. All of the Apostles were. The 120 in the upper room were. The 3,000 added at Pentecost were. The Church was founded by a Jew for the Jews.

The fact that it has become majority gentile does not mean that Jewish history is now a separate thing, and off-limits to the Church that a Jew founded on behalf of Israel. See what I mean? It is one, continuous history, not Christians vs. Jews.

There is every reason to believe that the Jewish "canon", a response to the rise of Christianity, was steered toward books and doctrines that supported their rejection of Jesus.

Knowing, or even suspecting this, why then go to those who reject Jesus in order to obtain from them the writings that you hope will point to Him? That is what makes no sense.

Been gone for a few days...

I don't know how to do mutli-quote, so let me just say that I track with you right up until you say that the formation of the Jewish canon, in response to the rise of Christianity, was biased toward a rejection of Jesus. I'd say that we'd have a huge problem if this is true. All of the OT passages quoted in the NT are available for us to read today. So, either the NT writers also (and I hate to even use this word) manipulated the OT text to their own ends or the Holy Spirit was indeed involved in the Jewish formation of the OT.

You are totally right in saying that this isn't about Christians vs. Jews. I for one wish that all Christians would be taught to appreciate their Jewish roots.

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by Marie_Gregg

Been gone for a few days...

I don't know how to do mutli-quote, so let me just say that I track with you right up until you say that the formation of the Jewish canon, in response to the rise of Christianity, was biased toward a rejection of Jesus. I'd say that we'd have a huge problem if this is true. All of the OT passages quoted in the NT are available for us to read today. So, either the NT writers also (and I hate to even use this word) manipulated the OT text to their own ends or the Holy Spirit was indeed involved in the Jewish formation of the OT.

You are totally right in saying that this isn't about Christians vs. Jews. I for one wish that all Christians would be taught to appreciate their Jewish roots.

The Jewish canon occurred in the time frame that surrounds Christ. I fail to see how it could not have been affected by their rejection of Jesus, since all scripture, in some way, points to Him. Some Jews still do not hold to the prophets. Judaism is not as fractured as Christianity, but it is fractured. As well, all writings in the Catholic canon have been in use since the first days of the Church. Not all were in all areas of the Church - simply because it was the ancient world, but all were in use. I hear far better arguments for their inclusion than I do for their exclusion.

[Marie_Gregg]

Originally Posted by po18guy

The Jewish canon occurred in the time frame that surrounds Christ. I fail to see how it could not have been affected by their rejection of Jesus, since all scripture, in some way, points to Him. Some Jews still do not hold to the prophets. Judaism is not as fractured as Christianity, but it is fractured. As well, all writings in the Catholic canon have been in use since the first days of the Church. Not all were in all areas of the Church - simply because it was the ancient world, but all were in use. I hear far better arguments for their inclusion than I do for their exclusion.

I think I'm confused. I think we're talking about different things. Too bad we can't meet face-to-face and have some coffee.

BTW, I've made it my goal to read the Deuterocanonicals sooner rather than later. They're on my Amazon wishlist.

[po18guy]

Originally Posted by Marie_Gregg

I think I'm confused. I think we're talking about different things. Too bad we can't meet face-to-face and have some coffee.

BTW, I've made it my goal to read the Deuterocanonicals sooner rather than later. They're on my Amazon wishlist.

Well, we are on both threads - this one and the "difference of 7 books" thread. I am wondering myself...

[Marocchino]

The Bible is absolutely innerant. There are no errors of facts at all. For sound Catholic hermeneutical principles, refer to Providentissimus deus (Leo XIII), the replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (ratified by St Pius X), Spiritus paraclitus (Benedict XV), Divino afflante spiritu (Pius XII), and Dei verbum (Vatican II).

Asserting that the Bible contains scientific and historical errors is a Modernist misinterpretation of Dei verbum 11, is heretical, and is an affront to God (since it attributes to the Holy Spirit an officious lie).

Thank God for His innerant, infallible, inspired written Word, preserved from any error for the sake of our salvation.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by Marocchino

The Bible is absolutely innerant. Thank God for His innerant, infallible, inspired written Word, preserved from any error for the sake of our salvation.

AMEN!

And who preservered this innerant Bible? Ah that would be the ECFs of the Catholic Church in agreement thus the canons. And all this while the Church/Eucharist was in operation, amazing history really. Oh...and then came the Bible.

The New Covenant of the NT is the Eucharist. Matthew 14:24 - And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

And he said unto them,.... Not after they had drank of it, but before, and as he gave it to them: this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many; in Matthew it is added, "for the remission of sins";

And for 2000 year that has been what? Perhaps those ECFs who were in total agreement on this inerrant Bible were wrong about this???????????????



Peace

[karaleigh]

Originally Posted by po18guy

Judaism is not as fractured as Christianity, but it is fractured. As well, all writings in the Catholic canon have been in use since the first days of the Church.

It's not Christianity that is fractured, but the multi-secularism church organizations that are damaged. Church developments steming from the concepts of Jesus are to blame if things seem muddled in Christian worships not Jesus's words.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by Marie_Gregg

Been gone for a few days...

I don't know how to do mutli-quote, so let me just say that I track with you right up until you say that the formation of the Jewish canon, in response to the rise of Christianity, was biased toward a rejection of Jesus. I'd say that we'd have a huge problem if this is true. All of the OT passages quoted in the NT are available for us to read today. So, either the NT writers also (and I hate to even use this word) manipulated the OT text to their own ends or the Holy Spirit was indeed involved in the Jewish formation of the OT.

You are totally right in saying that this isn't about Christians vs. Jews. I for one wish that all Christians would be taught to appreciate their Jewish roots.

The rise of the Jewish canon most likely was a reaction of the rise of Christianity....Christians used the LXX....which did have the apoc/duetro books and some of the imagery used in these books did have an influence on the the development of the Christian story.....after the destruction of the Temple...Pharisee Judaism became the dominant form of Judaism....the "rabbinical" movement began with the Pharisees as they were not as invested in the temple sacrificial cult as were the Saduceees.....the leaders of Judaism came from the Pharisee tradition...not Saducees....the rise of the synagouges was Pharisee led as was the rabbinic traditions which arose.

The Jewish canon accepted those books specifically Hebrew/Jewish....not necessarily those predominantly from the Diaspora...Hellenistic....Greek Hellenist Jewish influenced writings were rejected.....and from my readings part of the reason the apoc/duet was rejected was the struggle between the Pharisees and Christians for the "legitimate" successor of Judaism...both were claiming to be the "authentic" representatives of Judaism.

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Publisher

The rise of the Jewish canon most likely was a reaction of the rise of Christianity....Christians used the LXX....which did have the apoc/duetro books and some of the imagery used in these books did have an influence on the the development of the Christian story.....after the destruction of the Temple...Pharisee Judaism became the dominant form of Judaism....the "rabbinical" movement began with the Pharisees as they were not as invested in the temple sacrificial cult as were the Saduceees.....the leaders of Judaism came from the Pharisee tradition...not Saducees....the rise of the synagouges was Pharisee led as was the rabbinic traditions which arose.

The Jewish canon accepted those books specifically Hebrew/Jewish....not necessarily those predominantly from the Diaspora...Hellenistic....Greek Hellenist Jewish influenced writings were rejected.....and from my readings part of the reason the apoc/duet was rejected was the struggle between the Pharisees and Christians for the "legitimate" successor of Judaism...both were claiming to be the "authentic" representatives of Judaism.

But fortunately several of those apoc/deuter books were written in Aramaic/Hebrew as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown.

[Publisher]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

But fortunately several of those apoc/deuter books were written in Aramaic/Hebrew as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown.

That is not in dispute...however those books accepted into the "Jewish canon" reflected more..."Jewish" thought....the books of the apoc/duet books tended to reflect Hellenist/Diaspora.....and with Christians using the LXX, which included the apoc/duet books, those specifically "Jewish" books were chosen to reflect Jewish belief....IMO from what I have read, the rabbinic/pharisee movement to preserve Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple was a reason...not the only reason...but a contributing factor for their exclusion....Christians used them as the writers of the NT and the growing Christian community were Greek/Gentile...not Jewish.

A "stuggle" on who was the "authentic" continuation of Judaism....Christianity lost a significant number of it's Jewish adherants and became Gentile losing it's Jewish roots and practices.