New Testament Inerrancy

[Still Alive]

15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that you don't understand inerrancy  and what it means doctrinally when applied to Scripture.   

That right there sums it up. But it's not that I don't understand inerrancy. It is that I don't understand how some people are trying to use the word when discussing the bible. There is a "special" definition of the word in such circles, apparently. I come across that a lot. I remember one guy, when we were talking about the word death said, "that's not how the bible defines the word." I thought that was funny and said to him "Dictionaries define words. The bible uses words."

He actually got really angry because of what that meant to his doctrine.

I'm a binary thinker (black and white). It has its advantages and disadvantages. In my job it is a huge plus. In discussions like this it has tremendous advantages but also disadvantages. Take this thread, for example. Whenever anyone uses the word inerrancy, I use my steadfast belief that words have meaning and those meanings must be well defined if effective communication is to take place. so Whenever I see someone say the English translation of the old and new testaments are inerrant, this is where my mind goes (in it I suspect you can see the problem I'm having):

in·er·rant

[inˈerənt]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. incapable of being wrong.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Still Alive

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, Davida said:

The Question is , shiloh357 ,  will Still Alive read your post and learn from it & recognize he has been using these terms incorrectlty? or disregard it pretending you can redefine words how you like and it's a "matter of opinion" .   Definitions of words are not relative and they are not opinions. 

Heh. Did you read my post just about that one?

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

That right there sums it up. But it's not that I don't understand inerrancy.

1.  

Yes it is a fact that you  don't understand inerrancy as it applies to the Bible.

Quote

It is that I don't understand how some people are trying to use the word when discussing the bible. There is a "special" definition of the word in such circles. I come across that a lot. I remember one guy, when we were talking about the word death said, "that's not how the bible defines the word." I thought that was funny and said to him "Dictionaries define words. The bible uses words."

We are not dealing with just what a word means, but how it is applied and application is, in some cases, more important.  How a word is used trumps what it means.   

If I sarcastically say, "I love it when people cut me off in traffic,"  I am using the word "love" in a manner that expresses what I actually hate, not what I love.   Application is vitally important.  

Inerrancy, as a doctrine, refers to the historical accuracy of the Bible, not linguistic accuracy.

 

 

Quote

 

'm a binary thinker (black and white). It has its advantages and disadvantages. In my job it is a huge plus. In discussions like this it has tremendous advantages but also disadvantages. Take this thread, for example. Whenever anyone uses the word inerrancy, I use my steadfast belief that words have meaning and those meanings must be well defined if effective communication is to take place. so Whenever I see someone say the English translation of the old and new testaments are inerrant, this is where my mind goes (in it I suspect you can see the problem I'm having):

in·er·rant

[inˈerənt]

 

ADJECTIVE

1. incapable of being wrong.

 

 I understand that, but what you need to understand is that we are talking about doctrine here and you need to adjust your thinking to accommodate that fact.  

Inerrant means "incapable of being wrong"  and as that is applied doctrinally, it means that the Bible's historical claims are without any mixture of error.  If the Bible says it happened, it happened and the Bible's historical narratives are 100% true and factual.

[Still Alive]

3 minutes ago, Davida said:

Not capable of understanding where you are in error. 

Care to explain it?

[Still Alive]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes it is a fact that you  don't understand inerrancy as it applies to the Bible.

We are not dealing with just what a word means, but how it is applied and application is, in some cases, more important.  How a word is used trumps what it means.   

If I sarcastically say, "I love it when people cut me off in traffic,"  I am using the word "love" in a manner that expresses what I actually hate, not what I love.   Application is vitally important.  

Inerrancy, as a doctrine, refers to the historical accuracy of the Bible, not linguistic accuracy.

 

 

 I understand that, but what you need to understand is that we are talking about doctrine here and you need to adjust your thinking to accommodate that fact.  

Inerrant means "incapable of being wrong"  and as that is applied doctrinally, it means that the Bible's historical claims are without any mixture of error.  If the Bible says it happened, it happened and the Bible's historical narratives are 100% true and factual.

Well, then, based on that definition, we are in agreement.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Well, then, based on that definition, we are in agreement.

Are we?   You have changed your perspective on inerrancy to  something different, than you were advocating earlier?

[Still Alive]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Are we?   You have changed your perspective on inerrancy to  something different, than you were advocating earlier?

I'm saying that based on your explanation of how you are using the word "inerrancy" regarding the bible, we are in agreement. I believe all the stories in the bible are true.

[Still Alive]

Just now, Davida said:

Read over what Shiloh has said to you. He explained what inerrancy and infallibility means in reference to the Bible but you are continuing to ignore it. 

We've worked it out. And for the record, I was responding to it. Yes, I read his whole post. Frankly, I think our nailing down how the word inerrancy was being used resolved the whole thing. I love it when it actually comes to a meeting of the minds.

[Guest shiloh357]

12 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'm saying that based on your explanation of how you are using the word "inerrancy" regarding the bible, we are in agreement. I believe all the stories in the bible are true.

But it does NOT apply to translational discrepancies.  That is the point I am making.  Do you still think it has to do with translational discrepancies?

[Still Alive]

25 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But it does NOT apply to translational discrepancies.  That is the point I am making.  Do you still think it has to do with translational discrepancies?

Sorry, dude. I only paid for the half hour argument. I'm way over my allotted time on this one. My answer to that one is in my previous posts.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Still Alive