Is the bible inerrant?

Faith & Science Conversation
408

I think that we can find bible referencing that pretty comprehensively infers that yes, illness is a result of sin. If you want me to put some references here i can, but then you could easily find them yourself and given you appear somewhat resistant to biblical theology, perhaps its important you go searching for yourself if it really interests you. You would gain a lot more from your own study than someone raming bible verses down your throat.

What i will do is just quote one verse from the last book of the bible that clearly infers illness is a result of sin…

Revelation 21 (the apostle John is quoting Isaiah 65:17-25 here)

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:

“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man,

and He will dwell with them.

They will be His people,

and God Himself will be with them as their God.b

4‘He will wipe away every tear from their eyes,’c

and there will be no more death

or mourning or crying or pain,

for the former things have passed away.”

Oh, and consider the story of Lazurus. Jesus was informed that Lazurus was sick and needed his help. Jesus did not immediately go to Lazurus aid and as a result he died. Christ then raised him from the dead. Clearly infering that death is not something God wants to continue beyond the fulfillment of the plan of salvation (ie the second coming). It is Gods intention that there will be no more sickness and death and in order to achieve that end, he will wipe sin from existence!

1 Like
409

In stating that you are ignoring the details of my post. I did not make the claim without support, and the support was from the Bible. So don’t claim

how can you say that?

Maybe because I do not hold it in the same manner as you? If I do not take your understanding I must therefore be wrong?

I showed you Biblical evidence that illness is not directly from sin. Perhaps I should have added “always”?

The flipside to that is that maybe the presence of sin does not always produce illness?

I take offence at this. You are claiming I do not know scripture. You do not know how much I know about anything let alone how much i have studied or know scripture.
Why? Because my view is not the same as yours perhaps? If I studied it more I would end up with your view? Maybe the reverse is true and you only hold onto parts that suit your views?
(I really did not want to go here, but you are forcing my hand)

At the risk of calling you a liar, that is a false conclusion. inerrancy is not about balance or consensus. One opposing view anywhere renders the whole thing null and void. And I have shown you one major example of the opposing view. It is not one verse it is a whole Book!

Tell me Adam, would you say that the decalogue is sacrosanct and unbreakable?

Read the first five verse of Romans 14 (again) and get back to me.

Richard

PS Perhaps I should ask @St.Roymond & @Daniel_Fisher to join this party. Granted, there is good reason for Paul saying what he did, but it does pour hot coals on the use and authority of Hebrew Scripture as a gentile.

410

Hi Daniel,
. . . . . . . .very well said!

Since I was a little child, as far as I can remember, I’ve believed the Bible to be inerrant, for example, I have always believed the words of Jesus have been faithfully and accurately recorded and translated in the gospels.
I have realised that I don’t know why but in faith, it is clear to me at least, that our loving God, Who made time, Who made every single sub atomic particle in the universe, Who wrote the genetic codes of all life on Earth, Who is holding all of creation in existence right now, is way more than capable of ensuring His Word to repentant humanity is profoundly understandable as He intended…

For me, it goes without saying that our wonderful loving Creator God incarnate as the only name by which we must be saved, that is, through the gracious gift of our Lord and Saviour Jesus is inerrantly and faithfully documented in the Bible.
When He created the creation He spoke it into existence, our Lord God commanded and it was so. There is no mention of vast periods of time elapsing (i.e., millions or billions of years), anywhere in the Bible.

God spoke and it was so!

During His ministry on Earth to provide salvation and give the much needed direction to fallen humanity, Jesus commanded (it would appear to be actioned in a similar manner as He did in the creation, historically documented in Genesis), and it was immediately so, when He made the water into wine, when He raised the dead, when He healed the infirm, when He cleansed the demon possessed, when He calmed the storm, when He broke the bread and fishes and fed the five thousand, Jesus commanded and it was immediately so, there was no delay.

**35 On that day, when evening came, He *said to them, “Let’s go over to the other side.” 36 After dismissing the crowd, they *took Him along with them in the boat, just as He was; and other boats were with Him. 37 And a fierce gale of wind *developed, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling with water. 38 And yet Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, “Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?” 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who, then, is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” Mark 4:35-41

The Bible records the miracles of our loving, merciful God accurately and I have never had a cogent reason to doubt the Scriptures. Jesus Himself did not doubt the Scriptures, and nor should we.
God Bless you all,
jon

411

Hi, Jon - and welcome back!

We can learn a lot by attending to how Christ handled scripture. He used scriptures as something to build on, to lead people upward - ever closer to himself, the True Word. Scriptures (Moses and the prophets) were used as a starting point, but not as an ending point in the way so many of the Sadducees and Pharisees were using them in his day. There is a letter of the law (that cannot save, as Paul so passionately reminds us), and then there is the Spirit (of Christ) that accomplishes what the letter did not and never could. It is that Spirit that we are called towards, and that is where I find my hope!

Blessings to you too.

-merv

412

What is interesting is that if you put in !inerrancy" into a search engine the few sites that try and refute it base their arguments on philosophy rather than evidence. However, if you put in “contradictions” in the Bible there are a plethera of people eager to point out any small contextual or apparent factual discrepancy. According to one site there are over 101,
So it would appear that inerrancy has nothing to do with facts or textual discrepancies.
I find this very interesting.
My previous post would indicate that there are also theological or doctrinal differences. There is a fairly common argument over whether Paul and Jesus sang from the same hymn sheet…

Am I missing some definition of inerrancy here?

Richard

413

Well, as has been mentioned somewhere above, there are a plethora of definitions for ‘inerrancy’. So it’s probably rare that two random people in conversation mean the same thing by it.

It would be interesting to know if the use of that word (whatever is meant by it) is highly correlated with certain denominations or demographics. If one visited web sites of churches, where does it pop up the most? Reformed (Calvinist?), Baptist?, Rural churches? Urban? Young? Old? Southern? Northern? Maybe Ryan Burge has something about it in all his stuff. But my bet, until I’m better informed, is that the word finds its heaviest (positive) use in more fundamentalist settings.

1 Like
414
  • In the words of a well known Hindu: “Maybe, maybe not.” IMO, the firmest believers in an inerrant bible are the folks who affirm that The Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. Jude, and Revelation are inerrant.
1 Like
415

That is consistent with what I understand is true of the appeal of fundamentalism: It gives clear black and white answers and guidelines to those of us who are overwhelmed by the multiple choices of life these days. The Holy post Skye-Pod recently compared it to the feeling you get looking at the menu of the Cheesecake Factory as compared to going to your local burger place and being able to just chose from a few combos. To have an inerrant Bible means you don’t really have to choose, but only decide to follow, and ignore those parts that don’t align with your beliefs.

2 Likes
416

Of course they wouldn’t put it like that … Regarding anything that supposedly doesn’t align, they would respond, “what parts?”. And if you pointed them out, that’s when their theological gymnastics begin … you know … the ones they claim they never do because they’re “just plain reading it”. :roll_eyes:

1 Like
417

Sorry but I can’t see where you are going with this, or even where it came from?

Theology would be the study (understanding) of theos (God) and would seem to be the basis of any god based religion
Doctrine would be the set of beliefs within a religion.
Neither would be denomination or even Christian specific.

Incidentally, My church is called the United Reformed Church and has nothing to do with Calvinism, but everything to do with the reformation.

All I am saying is that I have seen on this forum a definition of inerrancy that claims it is only the Doctrine or theology that is totally consistent and inerrant. I would beg to differ on at east two counts that I have cited. One being the correlation between sin and suffering (illness or disability) and the other being Paul’s apparent ignoring of the commandment about the sabbath… And there are probably more.

Richard

418

Sorry I wasn’t clear. I was just musing if the word “inerrancy” has more usage in some denominations than others. Probably not a particularly enlightening question.

I would be right alongside you, begging to differ as well. Not sure if anybody on this thread has actually claimed such a thing for themselves or their thoughts. But we’re sure quick to make such inferences out of what we hear. And if somebody was to stretch the tattered cloak of inerrancy yet further to try to cover themselves or their tribe with it too, it just rips open even more.

2 Likes
419

Dear All, the Scriptures are inerrant.

22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area, in the portico of Solomon. 24 The Jews then surrounded Him and began saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus replied to them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law: ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), 36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to arrest Him, and He eluded their grasp.

40 And He went away again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was first baptizing, and He stayed there. 41 Many came to Him and were saying, “While John performed no sign, yet everything John said about this man was true.” 42 And many believed in Him there.

John 10:22-42

God bless,
jon

420

Richard,
I will again cite Christs own demonstration in refuting your statement…and you are 100% wrong btw Lazurus got sick and died. Christ raised him from the dead.

If you cannot reconcile that christ in resurrecting dead people who died from sickness as proof that life is the opposite of death and that death is a consequence of sin,

Might i also suggest you read Matthew 9

“Women, thy faith has made thee whole”

And luke 5.31
“It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick”

Finally romans 6.23

“For the wages of sin is death”

Given severe sickness left untreated usually results in death (a modern secular observarion btw), are you honestly going to maintain the claim biblical sin and sickness are not directly linked in this way?

421

Adam, would you say then that Lazarus has already experienced the resurrection? Which … on the common understanding of that would mean he’s still alive somewhere now?

1 Like
422

I think Jesus was a bit “playful” with scriptures (in ways that you would almost certainly not approve … the religious leaders of his time certainly didn’t.) Here’s an example. Would you say that Jesus is David’s son? Or David’s Lord? You might glibly answer: “both” since you’re probably aware of Jesus challenging the Pharisees with this in Matthew 22:45. And yet Jesus didn’t seem to resolve this contradiction for them! He lets it stand that normally, a son is not a Lord over his father (or at least they apparently didn’t accept that as normal in their time.)

BTW, did you notice that in your quoted passage Jesus says: “Has it not been written in your law…” (emphasis added). Building big doctrinal edifices out of single words, even if well-chosen by translators, is a dubious enterprise at best, but it’s a burden that inerrantists are left to practice all their mental gymnastics on. It’s fascinating to me that he didn’t say “my law” or “God’s law” there … but your law.

[or another example … Would you say that John the Baptist was Elijah come again? Or not? Scriptures quote John denying that he was (in John 1) with no editorial corrective to that given by the apostle author. And yet Jesus later states that John is indeed Elijah (Matthew 17). Of course, you will employ all sorts of rescuing devices, that maybe John was taking the question more literally, and Jesus looking at some ‘higher’ spiritual view, but the fact is always there for any to see, that Jesus reacts to our desire to flatten all scriptures down to simplified literalisms, and his reaction isn’t necessarily what I would call affirming of the habit. He does seem willing enough to humor it though - and confound us in the process.]

2 Likes
423

The bible doesnt specifically tell us anything beyond Christ raised him from the grave and those around were commanded to remove his wrappings.

I do not have any biblical evidence to say whether he then lived to a ripe old age and died again, or eventually ascended into heaven when Christ did 6 weeks after cross.

I dont make claims without biblical evidence.

If you have references on what may have happened to Lazurus after he was raised from the dead, id be interested in studying them.

One issue i suspect you are hinting at is the second death in revelation.

Rev 20:14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire.15And if anyone was found whose name was not written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Only the wicked “physically” die twice (first is naturally or if still alive, at the second coming…and second death is at/after the final judgement)

If Lazurus died physically on earth twice? Well thats clearly problematic isnt it. The bible doesnt directly tell us whether he did or not. If we follow biblical theology according to revelation 20, then Lazurus died once and was raised again and must have gone to heaven with Christ (because righteous dont literally die physically more than once)…either that or he was buried alive and Christ performed trickery? What do you think?

424

Trinitarianism answers your claim there…its 100% both because Christ is both fully human born of the lineage of David AND He is the incarnate creator in which " all things were made by Him and for Him"

Which apostle wrote my last quote here, wasnt it Paul in Colossians 1?

425

That is something that definitely makes you wonder. while he is the most prominent example, of course the same issue is true for the others raised as well. and especially for the ones in Matthew 27: 50-54.
I think the theologic answer is that they illustrated Jesus’ power over death as God, but My impression is that in their revived state, they had a normal body that ultimately suffered bodily death. Maybe there is an argument that using the word resurrected is not accurate, and they are best described as revived. We tend to associate resurrected as being to a new life, whereas they were revived to the old one.

2 Likes
426

As you suspect, I don’t have any resources either. If I’m not mistaken, we only have John’s gospel as the sole source of anything about it. It’s usually taken for granted (argument from silence) that Lazarus lives a ‘normal’ life after that and dies like anyone else. But you are correct that it’s just an assumption. But also think about this … had Lazarus gone on living in a resurrected state, obviously now impervious to death, can you imagine any universe in which Christ-followers would have remained silent about that?!!! So while it may only be an argument from silence, the silence is deafening! So your proposal that maybe he was whisked away in an ascension like Jesus might be the only way to answer that. And yet that seems dubious to me too. I can’t disprove it, of course - we have nothing to go on. But I guess I just don’t find the notion of him living out his life after that (and dying again to await the final resurrection his sister spoke of) as being all that problematic to me.

2 Likes
427

You know i like that answer, at the second coming we receive heavenly bodies… maybe thats a key to resolving the dilemma. Lazurus was quite obviously raised in his old earthly body that was still wrapped up in linen.

Good point jpm (sorry phil, i got mixed up and used mervins name here) i was reading mervins post as well)

1 Like