Christians: Biblical Errancy vs. Inerrancy

[RevOxley_501]

HI,

thought i should start my first debate thread with one of the most controversial topics going on in Christiandom today---Is the Bible 100% accurate.

Positions often include: Inerrancy Infallible: The Bible is perfect in original texts and perfect for doctrine---it is entirely breathed by the mouth of God--can not lead one astray

Inerrancy Fallible: 100% perfect if you translate correctly, poor translation might lead one astray. insert also interpretation

Errancy Infallible: text may be incorrect but is perfect enough to lead us to righteousness and good doctrine

Errancy Fallible: text contains errors-can lead to bad doctrine contrary to science and God

im sure there are others, but these are the ones i have run into

i happen to have recently started believing Errant Falliblity with the Bible , i believe it is good for Doctrine, but Christ is the Perfect Word

Discuss

 

[angellous_evangellous]

HI,

thought i should start my first debate thread with one of the most controversial topics going on in Christiandom today---Is the Bible 100% accurate.

Positions often include: Inerrancy Infallible: The Bible is perfect in original texts and perfect for doctrine---it is entirely breathed by the mouth of God--can not lead one astray

Inerrancy Fallible: 100% perfect if you translate correctly, poor translation might lead one astray. insert also interpretation

Errancy Infallible: text may be incorrect but is perfect enough to lead us to righteousness and good doctrine

Errancy Fallible: text contains errors-can lead to bad doctrine contrary to science and God

im sure there are others, but these are the ones i have run into

i happen to have recently started believing Errant Falliblity with the Bible , i believe it is good for Doctrine, but Christ is the Perfect Word

Discuss

Is "Errant Falliblity" the same thing as "Errancy Fallible"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous vs Angellous: Is the Bible Inerrant?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Personally, I don't see how any discussion or position on inerrantcy is going to be boring and unintelligent. The Bible is a human document, written by humans for humans - copied, edited, and transmitted by humans, and finally canonized in several different versions.

Protestants generally are over-zealous in waving their canon around and making any number of claims about it. It's really tiresome and stupid IMHO.

EDIT: It's fundie evangelical wackos that are forcing people to come up with a position on this petty issue. When I am at Southwestern Seminary it's hard to have a conversation with anyone and not talk about inerrancy. However, when I am on more fertile theological ground, where everyone realizes the hopeless impossibility of any position on inerrancy - it is never mentioned. In fact, I don't think that I've heard anyone talk about inerrancy outside of Southwestern...

 

[RevOxley_501]

Angellous vs Angellous: Is the Bible Inerrant?

that sounds like what got me in trouble at those other forums

hilarious

i like to be able to argue both sides---but you ---your a master

 

[RevOxley_501]

Personally, I don't see how any discussion or position on inerrantcy is going to be boring and unintelligent. The Bible is a human document, written by humans for humans - copied, edited, and transmitted by humans, and finally canonized in several different versions.

Protestants generally are over-zealous in waving their canon around and making any number of claims about it. It's really tiresome and stupid IMHO.

...

amen to that

 

[angellous_evangellous]

that sounds like what got me in trouble at those other forums

hilarious

i like to be able to argue both sides---but you ---your a master

That's not the only one:

Angellous vs Angellous: Nature of Hell

 

[angellous_evangellous]

but you ---your a master

You're new here...

Scientific Evidence that Angellous is Your Daddy

Be sure to check out page 6.

 

[RevOxley_501]

That's not the only one:

Angellous vs Angellous: Nature of Hell

i have been having the same internal debate mahself

 

[Katzpur]

HI,

thought i should start my first debate thread with one of the most controversial topics going on in Christiandom today---Is the Bible 100% accurate.

Positions often include: Inerrancy Infallible: The Bible is perfect in original texts and perfect for doctrine---it is entirely breathed by the mouth of God--can not lead one astray

Inerrancy Fallible: 100% perfect if you translate correctly, poor translation might lead one astray. insert also interpretation

Errancy Infallible: text may be incorrect but is perfect enough to lead us to righteousness and good doctrine

Errancy Fallible: text contains errors-can lead to bad doctrine contrary to science and God

im sure there are others, but these are the ones i have run into

i happen to have recently started believing Errant Falliblity with the Bible , i believe it is good for Doctrine, but Christ is the Perfect Word

Discuss

I'm not actually comfortable with your terminology, but here's my take on the subject: When God spoke to His Prophets and Apostles, His words to them were inerrant. I would probably go so far as to say that His words, as they were initially recorded, were inerrent. Unfortunately, all we have now is copies of copies of copies, and while the copies we have may bear a close resemblance to one another, the fact remains that we still do not have the originals and we don't know exactly what they said. To me, a bigger issue is what may be missing. We have references in the Bible to books that -- to the writers -- were valid scripture. And yet they're missing. Who knows how much information may have been lost over the years.

 

[RevOxley_501]

im sure my terminology is way off, i was typing and working at the same time---

I have no Doubt that every word that comes from Gods Mouth is true---but i do believe that the second it hits a man;s ear, flaws begin to rush in. So it is propable that as God gave John the Revelation, john could have started makin stuff up...im not saying he did, but he could have. and from the writers you have the translators, and from them you have the cannonizers (huge concern for me) and then more translators...God would have to have seriously intervened ALOT to keep it clean and perfect--i dont believe he did.

 

[Katzpur]

im sure my terminology is way off, i was typing and working at the same time---

I have no Doubt that every word that comes from Gods Mouth is true---but i do believe that the second it hits a man;s ear, flaws begin to rush in. So it is propable that as God gave John the Revelation, john could have started makin stuff up...im not saying he did, but he could have. and from the writers you have the translators, and from them you have the cannonizers (huge concern for me) and then more translators...God would have to have seriously intervened ALOT to keep it clean and perfect--i dont believe he did.

I don't either, but I suspect the problem began with the transcribers and translators and was further compounded by the canonizers. My guess is that the men God chose through whom to actually reveal His word (including John the Revelator) were reliable and honest. I don't believe they "started makin' stuff up."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

im sure my terminology is way off, i was typing and working at the same time---

I have no Doubt that every word that comes from Gods Mouth is true---but i do believe that the second it hits a man;s ear, flaws begin to rush in. So it is propable that as God gave John the Revelation, john could have started makin stuff up...im not saying he did, but he could have. and from the writers you have the translators, and from them you have the cannonizers (huge concern for me) and then more translators...God would have to have seriously intervened ALOT to keep it clean and perfect--i dont believe he did.

This is where Church tradition is helpful.

If we are going to conclude that the Bible is a compilation of records of a revelation - that is, we confess that there is a God because God revealed God to a prophet and either the prophet himself or someone the prophet spoke to wrote the revelation down for some reason AND a community of faith preserved, edited, and transmitted the document to us...

ah, forget it, it's a big fat hairy mess. We have 10,000 Greek manuscripts and another 30,000+ Latin manuscripts and no two match, and that's just for the NT. Church tradition(s) [making us orthodox] can help us to descide together what is authentic/authoritative or we can wing it on our own [making us Protestant or otherwise heretics].

 

[RevOxley_501]

I don't either, but I suspect the problem began with the transcribers and translators and was further compounded by the canonizers. My guess is that the men God chose through whom to actually reveal His word (including John the Revelator) were reliable and honest. I don't believe they "started makin' stuff up."

im sure---but then i am very sure that the people that cannonized were not good people, and had their own goals and intentions

so we cant know that the current cannon is the best cannon for the job

and we cant prove in any manner how accurate the current ancient texts are compared to the originals---they dont exist

 

[RevOxley_501]

This is where Church tradition is helpful.

If we are going to conclude that the Bible is a compilation of records of a revelation - that is, we confess that there is a God because God revealed God to a prophet and either the prophet himself or someone the prophet spoke to wrote the revelation down for some reason AND a community of faith preserved, edited, and transmitted the document to us...

ah, forget it, it's a big fat hairy mess. We have 10,000 Greek manuscripts and another 30,000+ Latin manuscripts and no two match, and that's just for the NT. Church tradition(s) [making us orthodox] can help us to descide together what is authentic/authoritative or we can wing it on our own [making us Protestant or otherwise heretics].

that last line herts


see my latest blog entry on the subject of herecy hehe

 

[angellous_evangellous]

im sure---but then i am very sure that the people that cannonized were not good people, and had their own goals and intentions

so we cant know that the current cannon is the best cannon for the job

and we cant prove in any manner how accurate the current ancient texts are compared to the originals---they dont exist

Some arguments are better than others.

Every Christian church except for the Protestants accept the Apocrypha as Scripture, and the other churches' (Orthodox, Catholic, Ethiopian/Coptic) canon came first.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

that last line herts


see my latest blog entry on the subject of herecy hehe

I'm using "heretic" in a non-pejorative way... it simply identifies that which is new.

 

[RevOxley_501]

I'm using "heretic" in a non-pejorative way... it simply identifies that which is new.

ohh i know

and think about precannonization---if Gods word is eternal, the bible should have fallen from the sky


kinda like the book of mormon

 

[RevOxley_501]

and i dont mean that BOM thing in a bad way

i just mean when it came it came all at once--

 

[Baerly]

I truly believe The apostles wrote down the very words Jesus spoke to them while he was on the earth (John 14:26 ; 16:13). They (the apostles) got it completely right because the Holy Spirit was guiding them as they wrote every word.God doesn't make mistakes. I also believe the books which were put together were the ones God wanted together. Those books were once delivered (Jude 3). Those books also contained everything pertaining to life and godliness(2Peter 1:3). I believe it was all done by the providence of God.

The problems began once people started making different translations thinking they would make it easier for us to understand. If a person uses the American Standard Version one is pretty safe.The New King James is pretty good. I personally use the King James Version,not because it is any better,probably because I have many notes in my bible and it takes time to transfer them each time I change bibles. After that many are just MIStranslations. This is where most of the problems enter on the scene. All the different Mistranslations.

I will have to go with the bible which we have today in English has some errors.They are mostly in spelling and does noting to change its doctrine.That is because people today are not led by the Holy Spirit like the apostles were when they wrote the letters in the first century. in love Baerly