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.

[illuminatus]

Innerancy
Definition: [n] (Christianity) exemption from error; "biblical inerrancy"

Here's the real kicker: is it the writer, or the reader who has inerrancy? By this I mean are the words or the interpretation of the words exempt from error?

[phoenixfire]

I think most evangelical scholars would say that inerrancy means that the words as originally written down by the writers (who were inspired by GOD) were without error.

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.

[McCulloch]

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.

I fail to see what question is being debated here.

[foshizzle]

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 think those were his questions.

[Midwestguy]

Thanks, Phoenixfire, for the insight.

If I understand you correctly, whether the number of the beast is 616 or 666 is irrelevant because the major doctrine is there will be great deception and false teaching before the second coming?

You talk about evangelical scholars. Is there a working definition for a Christian who is "evangelical"? What is the difference between an evangelical, pentecostal and charismatic Christian?

I remain that ever curious

Midwestguy

[perplexed101]

Thanks, Phoenixfire, for the insight.

If I understand you correctly, whether the number of the beast is 616 or 666 is irrelevant because the major doctrine is there will be great deception and false teaching before the second coming?

You talk about evangelical scholars. Is there a working definition for a Christian who is "evangelical"? What is the difference between an evangelical, pentecostal and charismatic Christian?

I remain that ever curious

Midwestguy

im curious as to how and why those particular scholars have come to that specific conclusion where the stress of unimportance outweigh translation. Have those particular scholars "given up" as to the pursuit of the correct translation? i state this not for the benefit of a possible mistake done by scholars but to remain in hope for the correct translation.
Since we are on the subject of a number or the number, im reminded of a verse in the king james version:

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

If John of Patmos aka John the Greek who was inspired to write the book of Revelation, why then would scholars conclude the following:

Since the Book of Revelation is written in a Hebrew context by a Jew with numerous allusions to the Old Testament, we should expect the solution to deciphering the meaning of six hundred and sixty-six to be Hebraic. "The reason clearly is that, while [John] writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression."4

excerpt taken from:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlear ... -10-05.asp


i dont understand how these scholars could make conclusions leading toward John as being a Jew and thought as a Jew but wrote in greek when other scholars state that John of Patmos was not a Jew but rather he was a greek who not unfamiliar with hebrew still wrote and expressed greek and in actuality John makes numerous references contained within the book of Daniel who God shown the meaning of the writing on the wall.

Dan 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
Dan 5:26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
Dan 5:27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

if the correlation between hebrew Daniel and allegedly so is John of Patmos then would there be a direct correlation between the measurement given to John as well as to Daniel?

If this was in fact geared toward a 1st century audience for the Jew and the greek (gentile in like manner) as so deemed by the entrusted scholars then what is the difference in utilizing a different template for a different interpretation vs. "numerous allusions to the OT (book of Daniel)" but claiming no relavancy due to 1st century audience intentions?

[perplexed101]

Thanks, Phoenixfire, for the insight.

If I understand you correctly, whether the number of the beast is 616 or 666 is irrelevant because the major doctrine is there will be great deception and false teaching before the second coming?

You talk about evangelical scholars. Is there a working definition for a Christian who is "evangelical"? What is the difference between an evangelical, pentecostal and charismatic Christian?

I remain that ever curious

Midwestguy

im curious as to how and why those particular scholars have come to that specific conclusion where the stress of unimportance outweigh translation. Have those particular scholars "given up" as to the pursuit of the correct translation? i state this not for the benefit of a possible mistake done by scholars but to remain in hope for the correct translation.
Since we are on the subject of a number or the number, im reminded of a verse in the king james version:

2Co 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

If John of Patmos aka John the Greek who was inspired to write the book of Revelation, why then would scholars conclude the following:

Since the Book of Revelation is written in a Hebrew context by a Jew with numerous allusions to the Old Testament, we should expect the solution to deciphering the meaning of six hundred and sixty-six to be Hebraic. "The reason clearly is that, while [John] writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression."4

excerpt taken from:
http://www.americanvision.org/articlear ... -10-05.asp


i dont understand how these scholars could make conclusions leading toward John as being a Jew and thought as a Jew but wrote in greek when other scholars state that John of Patmos was not a Jew but rather he was a greek who not unfamiliar with hebrew still wrote and expressed greek and in actuality John makes numerous references contained within the book of Daniel who God shown the meaning of the writing on the wall.

Dan 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
Dan 5:26 This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
Dan 5:27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

if the correlation between hebrew Daniel and allegedly so is John of Patmos then would there be a direct correlation between the measurement given to John as well as to Daniel?

If this was in fact geared toward a 1st century audience for the Jew and the greek (gentile in like manner) as so deemed by the entrusted scholars then what is the difference in utilizing a different template for a different interpretation vs. "numerous allusions to the OT (book of Daniel)" but claiming no relavancy due to 1st century audience intentions?

i guess the scholars will keep on guessing towards more guessing when interpretating prophecy.

i want to add observation towards the measurement and interpretation given in Daniel

Dan 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

1.although the meaning of mene was given a specified interpretation as well as tekel, why was the term Peres specificaly used instead of upharsin?

Dan 5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians

is there a difference between peres and upharsin? if so or if not i would like to hear some feedback pertaining to this.

[phoenixfire]

Thanks, Phoenixfire, for the insight.

If I understand you correctly, whether the number of the beast is 616 or 666 is irrelevant because the major doctrine is there will be great deception and false teaching before the second coming?

You talk about evangelical scholars. Is there a working definition for a Christian who is "evangelical"? What is the difference between an evangelical, pentecostal and charismatic Christian?

I remain that ever curious

Midwestguy

I don't know if there is a very precise definition of the word evangelical. Basically, I think it would be one who affirms the truth and authority of scripture and hold and practices beliefs consistent with the Bible. Charismatics are just more expressive in worship, and pentescostals are a more extreme form of charismatics who believe and practice speaking in tongues.

Also, please see George Barna's defintion and research at http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page ... dateID=160
He differentiates between evangelical, born-agian, and nominal christians. According to his research, only 7% of the population is evangelical.

Also, regarding 666, yes it is a very minor point and somewhat irrelevant. However, if 95% of the manuscripts have 666 and 5% have 616, then I think it likely that the original manuscript had 666. I'm not sure about the manuscript evidence on this specific point though.

[micatala]

I would be interested in your response to the Copernicus and Darwin thread.

I bring it up here, since it is my contention that those who insist that Genesis 1 is inerrant in the literal sense are ignoring the history of the Copernican controversy.

What do you think?