The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Partial Inerrancy - working definition

I came across this definition - "Partial Inerrancy is the belief the Bible is inerrant and infallible on matters of faith and practice, but that, even in the original writings, it contained historical, chronological and geographical errors."

Is that the correct working definfition of it? I thought it was those who belief the Bible is correct (infallible, inerrant) on matters dealing with salvation only. There might be some gems of practice for those believing it, but a lot of the practice was cultural norms at the time.

I disagree with who ever wrote that definition. The Bible is 100% inspired by God, saying that "it contained historical, chronological and geographical errors" is basically saying that God can error, or that not all the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Can you tell us where you found that definition?

Tom

Tom,

The definition was not given as an affirmation, but just a definition of what some people believe. In fact, it comes from a pamphlet's section advocating inerrancy.

I am wondering if the definition is the working definition by most using the term, partial inerrancy, in their writings or discussions. I heard of people saying that the Bible is true as it pertains to man's salvation, but not in other areas. Does that fall into the partial inerrancy camp, or not?

John,

If the Bible is partially inerrant it would not be inerrant. You can't be 99% error free and still be considered inerrant.

I don't know where you came across that definition but I suspect the person who wrote it is probably promoting some other religion. IF it were true then the Bible could not be trusted. Certainly some people will promote such a claim in order to diminish it's value and credibility. I'd like to know where the person who wrote that statment is coming from and what historical, chronological and geographical errors they have found.


Wes

Wes,

Again, neither I nor the writer of the definition is promoting the correctness of the belief behind the definition. I assume everyone on The Highway strongly affirms Biblical inerrancy. However, there are those who wrongly asserts that the Bible contains some types of errors. In giving the definition of partial inerrancy, I was only trying to fine tune the definition, not advocating it.

Here is the quote by the writer in his pamphlet, Translations on Trial: Is Your Bible the Word of God? by Robert Gromacki. Btw, the pamphlet is a good resource in explaining the history of the Bible compilation, major terms such as inspiration, revelation, pleneary inspiration, verbal inspiration, original writings, inerrancy, authority. Plus he gives an overview of the various translations.



-- This was printed in 1990; it is far worse today in the questioning of biblical inerrancy.

John

The way you originally stated the quote, made it sound like the author was advocating that. With the whole quote I understand what he is getting at.

Unfortunately I have come in contact with a few people who believe in TULIP, that don't believe the Bible is completely inerrant.
They also (dispite others trying to show them) believe that the Bible having errors doesn't conflict with it being inspired by God.
They believe that sinse God inspired man to write the Bible, then obviously the Bible is going to contain errors because man isn't perfect.

That's illogical!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Since the Holy Spirit is the AUTHOR of the Scriptures which HE wrote through the agency of men, then obviously and of necessity, whatever they penned is without error. In myriad places the Scriptures are referred to as God's word, the Holy Spirit speaking, etc. (Deut 32:4; 2Sam 22:31; Psa 18:30; 19:7; 2Pet 1:21; cf. Mk 12:36; Acts 1:16; 21:25; Heb 3:7; 9:8)

It is impossible for anyone to be able to pick and choose what in the written Word of God is truth and what is falsehood (in error). Either the entire Bible is veritable or it is false and therefore unreliable. In other words, it is an "all or nothing" situation.

In His grace,

Thanks for this futher clarification John. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" /> Now I see the statement in context. The writer is simply acknowledging that there are those who believe this and he sees Biblical inerrancy as a real battlefield issue.

I strongly disagree with those who make concessions as to the Bible's accuracy in all the topics it addresses. The Bible is not intended to be a geography book, a general history book, or a scientific book. However, I believe that where the Bible contains information relative to these topics it remains inerrant. Those who are willing to compromise the infallibility of the Bible have lost their way.


Wes

What are we all talking about here? The translations and copy manuscripts we have today or the original autographs which we do not now have?

Mark

Mark,

I think the phrase John has drawn our attention to applies to both. Either the original or the current translations are accurate or they are not.

Now if you want to go into a discussion about how some of the modern translations leave a lot to be desired that would be reason to open another thread to address that issue. But in this thread John is specifically pointing out that some evangelicals hold a view that the Bible is partially inaccurate when it addresses topics such as history, geography, and the chronological order of events.



Wes

That's illogical!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Since the Holy Spirit is the AUTHOR of the Scriptures which HE wrote through the agency of men, then obviously and of necessity, whatever they penned is without error. In myriad places the Scriptures are referred to as God's word, the Holy Spirit speaking, etc. (Deut 32:4; 2Sam 22:31; Psa 18:30; 19:7; 2Pet 1:21; cf. Mk 12:36; Acts 1:16; 21:25; Heb 3:7; 9:8)

It is impossible for anyone to be able to pick and choose what in the written Word of God is truth and what is falsehood (in error). Either the entire Bible is veritable or it is false and therefore unreliable. In other words, it is an "all or nothing" situation.

In His grace, [/quote]

My point exactly <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />, but they don't seem to see how illogical it is.

Tom

I was simply asking for clarification.


The original "autographs" certainly were accurate, but that is not quite the same as saying the current translations are the exact same thing.

That is why we have people who study these copies we have today. They for the most part study meticulously, in order to find any and all errors and present us with all of the evidence.

It also must be said that the vast wealth of copies we have today does not destroy our belief in inerrancy, in no way shape or form.
In fact, it is our belief in inerrancy that drives proper textual studies in order to give us the most accurate and consistent manuscript evidence we can have available.

Mark

The original autographs are complete without error. Today's copies may have some very minor mistakes, but nothing substantive. They are called inerrant as well as no Scripture contradicts itself.

Partial inerrancy is a view by those who basically claim that their are nuggets of infallible, inerrancy when Scriptuers speak on salvation, but not in other areas. I think their is a wider range in what some means when speaking for partial inerrancy (as my intent was in ascertaining with the thread). Apparently, some partial inerrantists will say the Bible is inerrant on matters of salvation and faith practices. Others will go even further or less on what are faith practices. Bottom line is that they are saying that the Bible is written by fallible man with some nuggets from the infallible God.

Mark,

This is so true. A translation is not the same as the original manuscripts. And neither are the extant copies of those manuscripts the same either. However, centuries of textual criticism have shown that the copies we have are incredibly consistent and accurate thus we are confident that what we have today is indeed the very Word of God written. But translations of those copies are a totally different matter. Most modern translations, so-called are hardly accurate when compared to the manuscript copies. And because we have had several threads on this subject here in the past I'll just mention it in passing. There are basically two methods of translation used: 1) Formal Equivalence and 2) Dynamic Equivalence. The former is what was used in the past and from which came such versions as the KJV, ASV, NASB and the latest ESV. The latter, "Dynamic Equivalence" is what most all modern translators use. At the risk of being overly simplistic, Dynamic Equivalence begins with the presupposition that the individual words are not as important as the meaning of those words. Of course, this is illogical since "meaning" can only be derived from words. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

As I pressed one of my former profs who was on the translation committee for the NIV; To the degree that one embraces Dynamic Equivalence one denies verbal plenary inspiration.

In His grace,

So true <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />