Biblical Inerrancy

[Midwestguy]

There are times when people talk about the "inerrancy" of the Bible. Is there a commonly agreed definition of the word? Does it mean the Bible is without error? If so, which manuscript does one rely on to arrive at this conclusion?

For example, in Revelation chapter 13 the number of the beast is stated as 666 while other manuscripts have 616. Which is inerrant and why?

I remain that curious but confused Midwest Guy.

[perplexed101]

[perplexed101]

JESUS EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER

A word study from A.T. Robertson's Word Picture of the New Testament gives some interesting insights: Vol. I -V, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930 (page 82, 83)

"But Jesus answered to them , My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:17, 18

"Jesus distinctly says, 'My Father' (ho pater mou), not 'our Father,' claim to peculiar relation to the Father. Worketh even until now (heos arti ergazetai) ...Jesus puting himself on par with God's activity and thus justifies his healing on the Sabbath."

It is also worthy of note that the Jews did not refer to God as "My Father." If they did, they would qualify the statement with "in heaven." However, This Jesus did not do. He made a claim that the Jews could not misinterpret when He called God "My Father." C.F.Pfeiffer and E.F.Harrison (eds.), The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Chicago: Moody Press,1962, page 309

Jesus also implies that while God is working, He the Son, is working, too. Again the Jews understood the implication that He was God's Son. Resulting from this statement, the Jews' hatred has grown. Even though they are seeking, mainly, to persecute Him, they are growing in their desire to kill him. Lenski, R.C.H. Interpretation of St.John's Gospel, Lutheran Book Concern 1942, page 309

" That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hearth My words, and believe on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:23, 24

In the last part of this verse Jesus thrusts a warning at those who accuse Him of blasphemy. He tells them that by hurling abuse at Him, they are actually hurling it at God and that it is God who is outraged by their treatment of Jesus. (Godet, F. commentary on the Gospel of St. John, page 174, vol.2)

We also see that Jesus claims the right to be worshipped as God. And from this it follows, as previously stated, that to dishonor Jesus is to dishonor God. (Robertson, Archibald Thomas, Word Pictures in the New Testament. p86)

Wordsworth (cited by J.C.Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, p291, vol.1) remarks, "They who profess zeal for the one God do not honour Him aright, unless they honour the Son as they honour the Father.

"And, thou, Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth;
and the heavens are the works of thy hands: Hebrews.1:10

Thou hast loved righteousness,and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy GOD, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Hebrews 1:9

"And AGAIN , when he (FATHER) bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the Angels of God worship Him." Hebrews 1:6

Jesus is Lord (YHWH), to the glory of the invisible God Father.

where is your (tetragram) in the following:

Job 23:16 For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

do you use (tetragram) within the following?

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

1John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

[perplexed101]

[ST88]

perplexed101:
Please refrain from making one-liner posts. If you wish to editorialize your responses with smilies, please do so in the same post. Such non-helpful posts only serve to take up space and mess up the indexing.

[hiramabbi2]

where is your (tetragram) in the following:

Job 23:16 For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

do you use (tetragram) within the following?

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

1John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

EPHESIANS 4
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 ONE LORD (YHWH), one faith, one baptism,
6 ONE GOD (Invisible God) and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 CORINTHIANS 15
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord (YHWH) from heaven.

Conclusion: Jesus is YHWH, the Son of the Invisible God.

DEAL WITH IT.

[perplexed101]

then deal with this:


1John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

ive already shown you how Jehovah cannot possibly be the Son, so you must deal with it one way or the other.

trying to combine Jehovah and Yahweh into a formation of one and depict that to Jesus Christ only leads to deducing what you know cannot be according to the same place you read from, whether english or not.

and i dont even have to distort the font heheh.

[Cathar1950]

For example, in Revelation chapter 13 the number of the beast is stated as 666 while other manuscripts have 616. Which is inerrant and why?

It was written and copies and rewritten. Depends on who was in charge at the time.
phoenixfire wrote:

The translations and copies of those original writings are not necessarily without error, although there are so many and the scribes were so exact, that we can have high confidence that we can reconstruct the orginial writings accurately. If there are errors, they are minor and do not change any major doctrines.

That is miss leading and wrong. The made errors look at the dead sea scrolls. They made changes and comments. The first 5 books of the Bible have been shown to be the work of at least three or four different authors at different times. Even the most conservative evangelicals agree. Who says they are minor errors.
I see we got a scripture tossing fight going on.
Food fight!

[youngborean]

The first 5 books of the Bible have been shown to be the work of at least three or four different authors at different times

Then this would be misleading and wrong too. It has been hypothesized that there were as many as 4 authors. But I am not sure if you are claiming that the dead sea scrolls justify this conclusion or if you are arguing to seperate points. I am an evangelical that doesn't agree with your point at all. There may have been different redactors at different times but authorship is a entirely point that should be established etymological evidence which I am failing to see. Minor errors in transmission of the old testament is a seperate issue from authorship.

[Cathar1950]

It has been hypothesized that there were as many as 4 authors. But I am not sure if you are claiming that the dead sea scrolls justify this conclusion or if you are arguing to seperate points.

It is a theory and a good one. There is not an opposing theory just a beliefs. The writers often made copy errors and comments. The Dead Sea Scrolls had more then one version of their most sacred books. There are issues about authorship of all the books of the OT and NT as well as time and place. There is nothing clear about any of it.