Is the Bible Inerrant?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Bret Ripley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1542
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:53 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _Bret Ripley »

mikegriffith1 wrote:We have a few fragments that are first-century material, but even those are 20-30 years removed from the originals.
gluttonforpunishment24/7 wrote:Which New Testament fragments would you date to the first century? P137 (a.k.a. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345)?
LittleNipper wrote:The last written book of the Bible (Revelation) was written approximately 95 AD. Everything else was written before that.
Probably not -- while I wouldn't quibble about your date for the composition of Revelation, there are a few books that were probably written later (e.g. Jude, Second Peter). But that's actually not responsive to the question I asked Mike, which was about his mention of fragments of first century New Testament documents. as far as I know we don't have anything earlier than second century (at least not yet) so I was curious whether he had any particular fragments in mind.
The Book of Mormon has no proof at all of ever existing until Joseph Smith is reputed to have found it --- centuries plus later...
Well, sure. To say that evidence for a pre-19th century Book of Mormon is scant comes close to abusing the word "scant." There simply isn't a non-faith-based reason to source the text to any time and place other than Smith's.
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _MsJack »

Wonhyo wrote:My questions for those who believe the Bible is inerrant are:

Okay, but realize that inerrancy and infallibility are not the same thing. Inerrancy means that the original autographs of the Bible were God-breathed and free from error (though it's possible for errors to have crept into later copies, and in fact, that has happened many, many times). Infallible means that the Bible cannot fail to accomplish what it is meant to accomplish, namely, to teach us the way of salvation. They are related concepts, but not interchangeable.

1. If the Bible is infallible, what about the passages within the Bible that contradict each other?

It depends on the passage, but generally, they were written for different audiences and different purposes.

2. If the Bible is infallible, which version/translation, of the many available, is the most infallible?

Most versions are infallible in that they can teach you salvation. If you meant to ask about inerrancy, only the original autographs (which we don't have) are inerrant; all other copies and translations have at least some errors, though arguably not on major theology. As far as English versions go, I'd rate the ESV and the NKJV among the worst English translations, not counting niche translations by alternative Christian sects like the New World Translation. (Then again, the ESV is pretty much the NWT for Calvinist complementarians, which is partially what makes it so bad.)

3. Could the Bible have been written by some inspired people without necessarily being totally inerrant?

An inerrantist would say no, that God only could have inspired perfect texts in the original autographs.

4. If the Bible is infallible, is it okay for a Christian to believe in an old-earth as opposed to a young-earth?

Absolutely.

5. If the Bible is infallible, could some of its stories have been metaphorical instead of literal?

Some of its stories are definitely metaphorical. Take the conflicting creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, where the order of creation is different. It's not that the Hebrews were stupid and didn't know that their Scriptures contradicted. It's that they didn't care, because those texts were never meant to teach a literal creation order (or the age of the earth, for that matter). Instead the texts were meant to convey deep spiritual truths about God's sovereignty, sin, strife, redemption, pain, temptation, fallen humanity, and much more.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _MsJack »

mikegriffith1 wrote:When you sit down with a well-read inerrancy apologist and start to discuss some of the undeniable errors and contradictions in the biblical manuscripts, he will acknowledge that those issues are "problems" and will assert that actually the doctrine of inerrancy really means that the original manuscripts were inerrant.

This is not something that inerrantists will only grudgingly admit if you twist their arm. This is literally how they teach inerrancy in evangelical seminaries. No one is hiding this.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _huckelberry »

Considering something like the Old Testament which is a result of compiling and editing what constitutes an original manuscript?

Is editing inspired?
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _Maksutov »

huckelberry wrote:Considering something like the Old Testament which is a result of compiling and editing what constitutes an original manuscript?

Is editing inspired?


Can fiction be inspired? C. S. Lewis lovers say yes. So why can't the Bible be inspired fiction? :wink:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _Brackite »

Bret Ripley wrote:
mikegriffith1 wrote:The oldest complete New Testament manuscript was written hundreds of years after the originals were composed. We have a few fragments that are first-century material, but even those are 20-30 years removed from the originals.
Which New Testament fragments would you date to the first century? P137 (a.k.a. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345)?


The likely earliest of the New Testament fragments that we have is a fragment from the Gospel of John, which is dated from the 2nd Century.

As for the New Testament, there is one second-century fragment of John's gospel known as the Rylands fragment, but it is very small and contains only a few verses.


http://miketgriffith.com/files/inerrancy.htm



The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment and with an accession reference of Papyrus Rylands Greek 457, is a fragment from a papyrus codex, measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (8.9 by 6 cm) at its widest; and conserved with the Rylands Papyri at the John Rylands University Library Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains parts of seven lines from the Gospel of John 18:31–33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains parts of seven lines from verses 37–38.[3] Since 2007, the papyrus has been on permanent display in the library's Deansgate building.

Although Rylands {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[4] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The original editor proposed a date range of 100-150 CE;[5] while a recent exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-fourth century, has proposed a date for {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {P}}} {\mathfrak {P}}52 of 125-175 CE.[1]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands ... apyrus_P52
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_huckelberry
_Emeritus
Posts: 4559
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:29 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _huckelberry »

Maksutov wrote:
huckelberry wrote:Considering something like the Old Testament which is a result of compiling and editing what constitutes an original manuscript?

Is editing inspired?


Can fiction be inspired? C. S. Lewis lovers say yes. So why can't the Bible be inspired fiction? :wink:


I feel quite sure some portions are inspired fiction and should be read and understood that way. It is a bit trickier with history as any story like telling of history is likely to contain a dimension of fiction.

Inspiration is a word used to speak of great insight into the human condition, or natural world or the possibilities of art or technology. It is also sometimes used for the encouragement or direction from God. The first meaning could work without the second being involved but I do not think the second could function with out the first. Communication requires speaker and hearer. If that is so then I think overestimating a literal reading could be noise blocking that communication link. Not hearing the human dimension with its limitation s and misunderstanding would limit the ability to hear Gods leading and direction in the result. In some instances I think the Bible opens a persons ears to Gods lead while in others it , or their noise about it, could block Gods communication.
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Re: Is the Bible Inerrant?

Post by _Brackite »

Bret Ripley wrote:
mikegriffith1 wrote:The oldest complete New Testament manuscript was written hundreds of years after the originals were composed. We have a few fragments that are first-century material, but even those are 20-30 years removed from the originals.
Which New Testament fragments would you date to the first century? P137 (a.k.a. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345)?


I think that Mike meant to instead state second-century. P137 was originally thought to have come from the first-century, but it is likely to have come from the late second-century or early third-century.

On the basis of the handwriting, Obbink and Colomo estimate that the manuscript was written in the range of A.D. 150–250. The manuscript itself is tiny, only 4.4 x 4 cm. It contains a few letters on each side from verses 7–9 and 16–18 of Mark 1. Lines of writing preserved on each side indicate that this fragment comes from the bottom of the first written page of a codex—a book rather than a scroll. The text does not present any surprising readings for a manuscript of its age, and the codex format is also what we would expect.

Even though it is not quite so early as many hoped, P137 is still a significant find. Its date range makes it likely the earliest copy of Mark’s gospel.


https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... y-fcm.html
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Post Reply