Inerrant or Infallible?

Is the bible inerrant or infallible or both?
Is there a difference between them?

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Ha!

I believe the Bible contains minor errors, either "slips of the pen” or otherwise, but despite same is infallible in relaying the message that God intended.

Wayne,

Hopefully not!

I'm just interested in how we define the authority and reliability of scripture and what do we understand by these terms. Do we define 'infallibility and inerrancy as the same thing or do we even understand these terms differently from one another.

I think it has a bearing on other questions such as the earlier post on 'missing scriptures'.

Infallibility:

"incapable of making mistakes or being wrong"

Inerrant:

"incapable of being wrong"

Now, knowing the nuances of the English language, and coupled with what I have been taught regarding this, these two are often paired together in statements of faith--aka they are used as a couplet.

I do not think that they are meant to be separated. Let me put it like this:

If I told my mother: "You are beautiful and lovely." Those words have slightly different meanings. If she immediately followed that with the question "Am I more beautiful or am I more lovely?" My response would be "You are both." That is because those words are simply used in conjunction with one another to cover a spectrum that neither word alone conveys, even if there is excessive overlap in the words meanings.

So, infallibility and inerrancy convey that the Scripture is incapable of mistakes or being wrong--as far as truth is concerned, this is entirely accurate.

The debates don't arise on whether God could be wrong, but almost always have lines drawn around grammatical inconsistencies, etc. Most churches circumvent this debate by adding "...both inerrant and infallible in the original texts." We don't have any original texts, but we all acknowledge that whatever was handed down to us from the Lord is true as truth can truly be.

inerrant and sufficient

I am trying to define Norman Geisler view as Inerrancy has been under attack recently

It is well worth reading Daniel B Wallace on the richness of the biblical manuscripts as compared to other ancient manuscripts it does not do it justice

Dom-

What does he say about obvious textual inconsistencies, eg

2 Sam 10:18 vs 1 Chronicles 19:18

2 Sam 24:24 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:25

To me these are simply copyists errors that do nothing to devalue scripture.

I just wanted to say thank you for you explaination and the illustration you gave. It was helpful to me.

I don't see them as the same.
I has been said that Infallible means totally trustworthy and inerrant means without any errors.

The reason I thought about this recently was due to reading an article that stated the view of a person called Steve Chalke, a well known false teacher in the UK. He said he did not believe that the bible was infallible, only Jesus was. That then gives him license to rip out any bible teaching that he does not like.

Now I would consider the bible to be infallible - totally trustworthy in what it teaches and says.

However to consider that the bible is completely without error (Inerrant) you could not honestly apply that to any translation from the original text, as by definition there are differences in words and phrases between them. If you say it applies to the original manuscripts, then we have issues, as there is not one complete original manuscript.
That said, I don't think that is a problem unless you insist on inerrancy. What we have (and there is an abundance of ancient documents) is absolutely in agreement on the message that has been recorded and preserved over the millennia for us. It is totally trustworthy.

As an example, take the synoptic gospels. All three record same events and teachings of Jesus, but with differences. Not contradictory, but each one remembering or emphasising different things. Much like court witnesses might remember or have seen something different to each other from the same event and added their own perspective to it. They are still trustworthy witnesses.

I know it's a big subject, but I think if we treat the bible as though it were a book where every word was directly written by the finger of God, much like the 10 commandments, and not consider that God used imperfect men to communicate His word to us, then we can get into error and this is where folk just apply any verse out of context as if is a divine law or promise that God gives to us. e.g. "I would that you propser and be in health" is taken as a divine word to all Christians, rather than see it is an opening greeting by Paul in his letter.

I am just putting this out there for folk to think on and comment.

And like the verses I pointed out, there are inconsistencies internally (in parallel passages in Samuel and Chronicles). Both cannot be correct which means one is in error.

That’s why I believe the Bible infallibly communicates God’s message to us despite copying errors or slips of the pen (I believe 1 Cor. 14:22 contains a slip of the pen by Paul- or by the person he was dictating to. He got his point reversed). But it doesn’t matter because from the context I know what he meant.

I think perhaps our translations not inerrant. I trust that they are generally infallible. At least KJV, NASB, ESV and MEV and NKJV. I believe it is very possible we have copyist slips and additions, deletions in them. I don't worry about it because the variations are so minimal and insubstantial that none who seems the truth should worry about the Bible's trustworthiness

Todd I think if you look at these scriptures carefully you will see there are no contradictions. Kent Hovind has a good study on this.

Here's an excerpt from a few of marvin's translations

John has been forgiven all of his sins. Mt1
John has been forgiven his sins, all. mt2
John has sins, all forgiven. mt3
Forgiven for all sin John is. mt4
Sins of John forgiven all of them mt5
All sins are forgiven for John mt6

Which of these translations are different? 6 of them.
Which of these translations concern John? all 6 of them.
Which of these translations concern sin? all 6 of them.
Which of these translations concern forgiveness? all 6 of them.

Is there any difference between the meaning of any of these 6 translations? No difference.

This is what it means to go through the vast numbers of manuscripts, variations in so many, the same meaning in all.

Yet, each one is called a 'variant', to the skeptic it means they're' all different...that's only half right, but instead of stopping there, we ask what is the variant saying?
Oh, it says the same thing, sometimes with details attached... you know Two demoniacs, not one, two temple cleansing, etc.

There are spelling errors, copiest errors etc. What we dont have is, manuscripts saying "and Jesus said...I'm not really God's son, I just am here to be nice".
I.O.W's stark contradictions are absent.

Some will say "OH brother Marv you heretic, you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Word!. I adhere to the Chicago statement of faith in inerrancy. I do believe in it.
What I don't get is, how out of one side of their mouth someone will say the bible is 100% error free in all forms and anathematize anyone who disagrees with that. Yet from the other side of their mouth pick and chose what preacher they like, what doctrines they like, what Churches they like and none of those are divine revelation of the truth. They are only human demonstrations of the truth pointing to the Person who is TRUTH. Jesus Christ.

As soon as you and I get involved in speaking, teaching and demonstrating the life of Jesus...we infallibly fall short.
So, while some want to damn others to a bottomless hell for reading some 'unauthorized version' they have no qualms about swallowing a camel in the form of their own predilections which are altogether less than divine.

Is anyone here at all concerned about discrepancies comparing the "red letter” words of Jesus between the various translations?

sample; Matthew or Luke 4:4.... ?
In the KJV we see Jesus make an almost exact quote of Deuteronomy 8:3 which puts forth the principle that we are to depend on God not only for our fleshly provision but more importantly, our spiritual nourishment. Where several aspects are treated by the text, the least of which being our dependence on Him, which when in the other versions that leave this
(but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God) out of the record that seems to somewhat diminish the primary objective of the text, no?

Moreover since it’s a direct quote from Jesus, doesn’t the differing textual accounts affect the integrity of it validity?

I'm not a KJV onlyist, and I don't anathematize anyone for reading another version. Actually, when I buy someone a Bible it's usually the NASB or NKJV (I don't want them to get confused by the "archaic" language in the KJV). That being said, I do believe some versions are superior to others.

As for copyist errors, I wonder if people realize how exacting scribes and rabbis were when they made copies of manuscripts. I don't think preserving God's word was something they took lightly...

There is no doubt better transliterations out there and better scholarship too, my point is that we have good English bibles that can be bought for a dollar in any second-hand store or thrift shop.

At the risk of sounding heretical, neo-orthodox or what have you...If you buy any of the big 5 versions available today you will not only get the great scholarship but a bible that will serve you all of your days and secure your eternal destiny.

If you're not going to become a Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic scholar and I mean real scholar, these kinds of debates over English versions and textual variants are rather self-serving, they offer reasons for the validity of your own personal version, but it's not scholars talking with real knowledge its just pre-schoolers talking up who's got the fastest 3 wheeler. When you grow up you realize the silliness of it.

Don't get me wrong I'm not against discussion of these topics in any way. I am wary of those who bring them up because there is an ax to grind and they're sharpening it to chop you down when disagreement comes (and it will come).

If someone goes out and buys an ESV study bible you have a great bible. If you get a KJV of any sort ( though I don't recommend a Dakes...because of his commentary) you are getting a great bible, same with the NIV study bible or NKJV bible, or NASB bible in whatever form.

When you find texts in one version, bracketed it just means the ancient texts used to transliterate contained only A and B and C. Other ancient texts contained A and B and C and D. So some folks have a bible with "D" and others don't. The scholars are quick to point out their reasoning for omission and others for admission of various texts.

As I said in an earlier post, what you don't find is as important as what you do find. What you don't find is Jesus making claims of himself that substantially contradict claims made in other codexes. He isn't a little god in one text and an angel in another and a God in another. Your salvation is not by faith one text, by works in another, and by angels in another or by a guru somewhere else.

Jesus goes so far as to make claims as to the law ( ye have heard it said-but I say unto you) and he expands on the law. Ex. Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Jesus makes no bones about expanding the meaning of a law that was not made explicitly clear by Moses.

Some writers include things that others dont, some writers omit other things altogether. Notice the gospel of John in relation to the other 3 gospels. This is not because texts are corrupted, twisted, it is because God intended for emphasis to be given by way one author versus another.

If you attempt to dice up the variants without being a Greek/Hebrew scholar, then you will simply pick which book and what scholar you like and then pit them against someone else's scholar and what they wrote.
Sometimes this sort of this is very valuable and can greatly improve the vagueries that some liberal scholars put out. But this is due to biases of their own and those biases may not directly affect the transliteration of a codex, but it does affect the summation of the text once transliterated. Simply put you have greek scholars of impeccable quality who do not hold to the deity of Jesus Christ. All that scripture text right in front of them and they still do not have the 'revelation' that only God gives expressly from the truth in front of them.

This kind of thing is what generates a Bart Erhman.

At the end of the day, a reality must be understood.
Whichever Bible you buy, unless God opens up you to it, you can debate all day long about codex this and variant that and die in your sins.
Proper transliteration has a necessary place in the world, but its just a piece of the puzzle of your life of faith in Jesus Christ.

These concerns are why I have elected the MEV as my preferred Bible. Uses KJV Received Text for NT but is very readable. No controversies over omitted verses, however honest. Safe. Helpful.

As we have drifted into talking about bible translations, it would be good to consider the options here, as all are not the same.

There are some basic distinctions when it comes to bible translation. These can be split up into the following.
1. Formal equivalence (literal) which would include the KJV; NKJV and NASB
2. Functional equivalence (dynamic) which would include the NIV
3. Free (paraphrase) which would include the Message, Living Bible and NEB.

Translations such as the ESV and RSV fall somewhere in between the Formal and functional equivalence. GNB and NLT fall somewhere between the functional equivalence and Free.

Number 1. Formal Equivalence tries to keeps as literal an equivalent word for word translation, whereas 2. Functional equivalence will change words if it is deemed neccessary to express the original meaning in a clearer way. 3. Free of Paraphrase feels no need to keep to the literal translation of words, but to just express what the translators feel is the correct meaning of the text.

I personally much prefer translation method 1, even if it it takes more work to understand at times. This is because the other two options will to one degree or another rely on the translators opinions on what was originally meant and their theology may well impact that conclusion.

The other translation distinctions are what original manuscripts are used for the translation. Some use the older manuscripts and some the newer or majority texts. There is much debate on this and each is convinced that their preference is the best option.

Edit/Add: My personal bible of choice is the NKJV based on the points above and the fact it uses much the same manuscripts as the KJV, but with some references to the Majority texts, plus it updates and corrects some of the KJV to give clearer and better translation.
I'm not saying I have it all right, but it is what I feel comfortable with. I also think that the other translation metjods have their place as long as we understand the limitations.

Regarding the various manuscripts, the fact is that the variations are quite minor and do not affect any major doctrinal issues. Translations are more the issue than manuscript sources I think.

great post dave