Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

[Audie]

I am satisfied that the sea of bronze was built exactly as it was said to be built.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Exactly to infinite precision. Gotcha.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Exactly to infinite precision. Gotcha.

Of course. Just like with Moses and the Tabernacle, David was given the instructions on the building of the Temple and it's implements. See (1 Chron. 28: 11-19) And David gave them to Solomon.

(28:19) "All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern."

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Audie]

Of course. Just like with Moses and the Tabernacle, David was given the instructions on the building of the Temple and it's implements. See (1 Chron. 28: 11-19) And David gave them to Solomon.

(28:19) "All this, said David, the LORD made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern."

Good-Ole-Rebel

Infinite precision of a bronze casting.
You believe very odd things.
No more questions.

 

[Audie]

can you repost your reply, plz? I think there was a problem with the quotation parameters. I’m confused as to what you’re addressing, and I’d like to give you a reply.

Observe what 1213 says in your post #96

 

[Subduction Zone]

The standard is the 'inspiration of God'. The written Word of God carries with it that inspiration. A writing is not inspired because man declares it inspired. It is inspired because God wrote it. No matter what standards or rules man may apply to determine the inspired writings, they would find their place in the Bible because they were recognized as inspired by God by the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Inspiration of God is not a guarantee of accuracy. The Bible does not claim that inspiration makes it accurate either. Which is a good thing. Many parts of the Bible have been shown to be wrong. You do not need to throw it all out. You only need to realize that some parts are best treated as morality tales.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scripture, the Bible, warns of adding to or taking away from the written Word of God.

According to the collection of the 66 books we have in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

i do not think that you understand the history of the Bible. The book as a whole dates to the fourth century or later. Long after that verse was written. Guess what they did between those times?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Inspiration of God is not a guarantee of accuracy. The Bible does not claim that inspiration makes it accurate either. Which is a good thing. Many parts of the Bible have been shown to be wrong. You do not need to throw it all out. You only need to realize that some parts are best treated as morality tales.

The inspiration of God is the standard by which books were canonized.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

i do not think that you understand the history of the Bible. The book as a whole dates to the fourth century or later. Long after that verse was written. Guess what they did between those times?

What verse are you talking about?

And, what does it matter?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Subduction Zone]

The inspiration of God is the standard by which books were canonized.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Really? So they had an inspirometer back in those days?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What verse are you talking about?

And, what does it matter?

Good-Ole-Rebel

The one that you mentioned about adding or taking away scripture.

And because they added and took away scripture after that verse was written.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

REGARDING THE THEORY THAT THE BIBLICAL TEXT IS INERRANT

@Clear offered multiple examples in post #85 and 86 where the translators and creators of bibles, themselves, list many of the mistakes they themselves found in the biblical text and some, which they, created in the biblical text.

In response to these examples

@Good-Ole-Rebel replied : “I am not interested in your voluminous smoke screen.” (post #93)

The dictionary tells us the "smokescreen" metaphor is "something that hides the truth". This is not what I did. I gave multiple examples of errors in the biblical text which translators and creators of bibles themselves described. The examples I gave were not at all “voluminous”, but merely a few. There are actually hundreds and hundreds of such examples of errors in the biblical texts.

It is ironic that you are trying to convince forum members of your theory that the biblical texts are completely free of error ('inerrant') when you cannot read the Greek or Hebrew texts you are claiming are inerrant.. While pure dogmatic claims could be made with less scrutiny in the middle ages, the sheer volumes of data available to readers nowadays means this theory of inerrancy cannot survive among the educated because they can simply look at the evidence and examples for themselves. To those familiar with early texts, the inerrancy theory is quite irrelevant and, perhaps, disingenuous. There is nothing to fear from data and education about the biblical text and errors in it.


@Good-Ole-Rebel said : "If you want a book to read, get (The Canon Of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP,). " (post #93)

I'm surprised you bring up F.F. Bruce since he also tells us that your theory of inerrancy is in error. Bruce points out many errors in the biblical text in his books.

For example Bruce points out that Masoretic Judges 18:30 reads that Gershon was the son of Manasseh. Bruce reminds us this is an error since Gershon was actually the son of Moses. bruce discusses many such errors and he describes reasons for such errors in the text.

Bruce even discusses more modern textual errors. For example Bruce says “There are several places where the 1952 RSV adopts readings of ‘Isaiah A’. One is Isa 21:8 “Where the puzzling Masoretic reading (A.V., ‘And he cried, A lion’: R.V., ‘And he cried as a lion) is replaced by ‘Then he who saw cried’ – a reading hitherto known from no Hebrew manuscript., but frequently suggested as an emendation…”

Bruce also discusses irreconcilable differences between multiple manuscripts. For example, even the 10 commandments are different between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic text and even Luther changed the set of 10 commandments in his first translation (leaving out the prohibition against graven images). Luther split the ninth commandment in order to keep 10 commandments. This is why the 10 commandments were different for Catholics and Protestants in Europe for a time.

Bruce also describes scribal errors. For example, My avatar in the forum is a picture of a famous error from the greek of Codex Vaticanus.

Bruce also describes expansion variants. Codex D for example, Adds to luke 6, between verses 4 and 5, the phrase “The same day, beholding a certain man working on the Sabbath, He said to hi : “Man if indeed thous knowest what thou art doinig, blessed art thou. But if thou knowest not, accursed art thou and a transgressor of the law”.

Yes, I’ve read F.F. Bruce. He also feels that your theory of inerrancy is a bizarre theory that does not and cannot exist in the educated world of textual historians.

Clear
ειτωσεακω

I gave Bruce as a reference for the canonization of the Bible. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. But it is a good book.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Clear]

@Good-Ole-Rebel said : "I gave Bruce as a reference for the canonization of the Bible. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says." (post #131)

So,..... you suggested a book which proves your own theory of inerrancy in biblical text to be incorrect?

This is another example of illogical thinking. Did you think that referencing a book (that you yourself clearly have not read, or, do not even believe regarding inerrancy) was somehow going to increase the credibility of your claim on the current subject of inerrancy? It makes no logical sense to claim inerrancy in text as a theory and then suggest someone read a book which proves that theory of inerrancy to be incorrect.



EXAGERATED CHRISTIAN CLAIMS TO BIBLICAL PERFECTION OFTEN CAUSE MORE HARM THAN THE GOOD THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO

Good-Ole-Rebel. Please realize that I do NOT think your motives for making the claim that scriptures are “inerrant” (i.e. without error) are evil.

It seems that you feel that God wants you to have faith in the text. I think the motive is a GOOD motive, but the specific application of this desire to please God in this specific way seems misplaced. I think God does want us to have faith in him and in the social and moral principles the ancient individuals who wrote the texts are trying to witness to.

I think the life of Jesus and his death and resurrection as a superlative life and death and resurrection are profound testimonies of profound truths. But, the individuals who wrote the texts were merely individuals who were doing their best and the transmission of the text was also accomplished by imperfect individuals with imperfect language skills and imperfect means of transmission (especially in the age before printing) and even when they made changes to the text on purpose, I think the majority of individuals were trying to do their best. BUT, neither these individuals nor their textual product is perfect and without errors (inerrant).

The past few “back and forth” posts between you who made the claim of “inerrancy” and other posters who see the impossibility of your claim is evidence that such claims are counterproductive to the Christian purpose. When we exaggerate religious claims and our exaggerations are discovered, it decreases credibility rather than enhancing trust in christians who are willing to engage in dubious claims in a misguided attempt to improve the status of a text or a doctrine.

Once christians are perceived as having lost both credibility and relevance, then agnostics and other investigators of religion may turn elsewhere for religious meaning and for religious truth and for credibility in personal witness. I know that christians who claim inerrancy are NOT trying to damage christianity (unless they are anti-christians who are trying to make christianity look silly by making the claim of inerrancy...), but nonetheless, I think the claim to inerrancy in the face of data causes christianity harm.

For example, one harm of inaccurate and inflated Christian claims is that the agnostic investigator of Christianity who discovers the errors of such claims and JUSTIFIABLY dismisses such claims. However they may then UNJUSTIFIABLY dismiss other profound christian truths at the same time he justifiably dismisses a specific christian error. The other harm is that the Christian claim itself loses credibility in the eyes of critics when christians make unjustifiable and erroneous claims.


In any case Good-Ole-Rebel, I honestly hope your spiritual journey is wonderful and insightful and full of joy.

Clear
ειδρσεακω

 

[1213]

The contradictions are there and they’re real.

By what I see, the contradictions are imaginary and only in the bad interpretations, not in the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The standard is the 'inspiration of God'. The written Word of God carries with it that inspiration. A writing is not inspired because man declares it inspired. It is inspired because God wrote it. No matter what standards or rules man may apply to determine the inspired writings, they would find their place in the Bible because they were recognized as inspired by God by the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

This is idolatry and self-contracting at the same time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No books were left out. God's writings carry their own inspiration.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You have mastered the circular argument and shown significant competence with personal attacks. Time for you to move to more complicated fallacies.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you want to argue with what another poster has said, take it up with him. I have already discussed it with him.

Concerning 'which people': As I said, the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You did not discuss anything with me. You made declarations and then ran. A good ole rebel.

 

[Wandering Monk]

So, did God write John 7:53-8:11? Most Greek manuscripts have it, but some do not?

And who are 'the people of God' you keep referring to? Those who believe what you believe?

 

[sojourner]

The contradictions of i.e. how many years passed between this and that is nothing compared to the differences in theology between the Tanakh and the Christian scriptures.

Of course there are major differences in theology. but differences in theology aren’t the same thing as contradiction of fact.

 

[sojourner]

The standard is the 'inspiration of God'. The written Word of God carries with it that inspiration. A writing is not inspired because man declares it inspired. It is inspired because God wrote it. No matter what standards or rules man may apply to determine the inspired writings, they would find their place in the Bible because they were recognized as inspired by God by the people of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

First off, God wrote nothing. nothing fell out of the sky in “God’s own hand.” Second, which “people of God do you refer to?”

 

[sojourner]

Scripture, the Bible, warns of adding to or taking away from the written Word of God.

According to the collection of the 66 books we have in the Bible.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You understand that the “66 books” represent a revision an earlier canon. Therefore, your precious “66 books” have “taken away” from the “word of God.”