ApologiaPhoenix
September 25th 2010, 12:15 PM
Stevo has asked me to speak some on my views of inerrancy. What does it mean when I say the Bible is inerrant. I think it does entail that first off, it contains no errors. The second point however is more on the idea of inspiration and that is that the Bible has a guiding mind behind it, the mind of God, meaning that all that we need to know for our salvation can be found in Scripture.
What I mean by the second is that we all here do believe in supplementing our faith with reading in other areas. JPH reads the works on social science. I read the works on philosophy. Others here read science. There are of course numerous other areas that could be studied and some overlap, such as JPH and I both have an interest in history.
However, I think we would all agree that you don't have to study any of these in order to get the basic message of salvation out of Scripture. The study in these areas will not go against that of course. It will instead result in a deeper understanding of salvation. For instance, you can get a basic idea of entering a covenant with YHWH, but the social sciences JPH studies can tell you much more about that. I would agree you can get a basic concept of God without reading philosophy, but philosophy will help deepen that.
As for inerrancy, I believe that when the Bible teaches something as true, it is true. Of course, the Bible records the lies of satan and others and that is not meant to be true. The Bible also uses language such as "the sun rising" that is not meant to be taken in a literal sense and can round numbers such as the number for pi on the Sea in the Temple.
Also, this only applies to the originals. It does not mean that every copy would be inerrant. Were that the case, all that would need to be done to overthrow the Bible would be to say that the Wicked Bible said "Thou shalt commit adultery", and inerrancy would be overthrown. Thus, you can have a question of how old said king was when he began to rule and it will not mean inerrancy is defeated.
To say the Bible is inerrant however does not mean that our interpretations are, because our interpretations often disagree. Thus, we should keep checking back to as many sources as we can and debating our ideas back and forth all with a goal of getting to what it is Scripture really is teaching on a number of controversial issues, such as the age of the Earth, the doctrine of the second coming, whether salvation can be lost or not, and speaking in tongues.
I can recommend the following resources.
Geisler edited the work "Inerrancy" put out by the ICBI. I'd also recommend his work he wrote with William Nix on "A General Introduction to the Bible" and the first volume of his Systematic Theology.
Ron Nash's "The Word of God and the Mind of Man."
Gleason Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties."
The multi-authored compendium "Hard Sayings of the Bible."
JPH's web site in dealing with "Bible contradictions."
Also, for particular passages, I recommend reading a variety of commentaries. However, what can sadly happen often is the one problem you're wanting to deal with is one the commentator isn't.
Hope this helps!
What I mean by the second is that we all here do believe in supplementing our faith with reading in other areas. JPH reads the works on social science. I read the works on philosophy. Others here read science. There are of course numerous other areas that could be studied and some overlap, such as JPH and I both have an interest in history.
However, I think we would all agree that you don't have to study any of these in order to get the basic message of salvation out of Scripture. The study in these areas will not go against that of course. It will instead result in a deeper understanding of salvation. For instance, you can get a basic idea of entering a covenant with YHWH, but the social sciences JPH studies can tell you much more about that. I would agree you can get a basic concept of God without reading philosophy, but philosophy will help deepen that.
As for inerrancy, I believe that when the Bible teaches something as true, it is true. Of course, the Bible records the lies of satan and others and that is not meant to be true. The Bible also uses language such as "the sun rising" that is not meant to be taken in a literal sense and can round numbers such as the number for pi on the Sea in the Temple.
Also, this only applies to the originals. It does not mean that every copy would be inerrant. Were that the case, all that would need to be done to overthrow the Bible would be to say that the Wicked Bible said "Thou shalt commit adultery", and inerrancy would be overthrown. Thus, you can have a question of how old said king was when he began to rule and it will not mean inerrancy is defeated.
To say the Bible is inerrant however does not mean that our interpretations are, because our interpretations often disagree. Thus, we should keep checking back to as many sources as we can and debating our ideas back and forth all with a goal of getting to what it is Scripture really is teaching on a number of controversial issues, such as the age of the Earth, the doctrine of the second coming, whether salvation can be lost or not, and speaking in tongues.
I can recommend the following resources.
Geisler edited the work "Inerrancy" put out by the ICBI. I'd also recommend his work he wrote with William Nix on "A General Introduction to the Bible" and the first volume of his Systematic Theology.
Ron Nash's "The Word of God and the Mind of Man."
Gleason Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties."
The multi-authored compendium "Hard Sayings of the Bible."
JPH's web site in dealing with "Bible contradictions."
Also, for particular passages, I recommend reading a variety of commentaries. However, what can sadly happen often is the one problem you're wanting to deal with is one the commentator isn't.
Hope this helps!