Christian Definition: Concerning the Bible, according to Robert Rushmore inerrant means wholly true or without mistake. It refers to the fact that the writers of the Bible wrote exactly what God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired them to write.
Given that definition, is it ethical to use an author’s inspired words for a purpose other than what was originally intended by the author inspired by God?
Here is an example that has been thrown around quite a bit lately.
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
This verse has been used many times to give credence to NT writings for teaching, rebuking, etc. in righteousness (
Various Commentaries), to support that the Bible has no errors, and to claim that the Bible does not contradict itself.
(Please don't ask me if I believe the NT is good for teachings etc., sooo not the point.)
If we look at the reality of when 2 Timothy was written, we find a different purpose presented by Edgar J. Goodspeed in
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The OT was being cast aside by Marcion who was considered a heretic.
By 139, Marcion of Sinope, in Pontus, reached Rome, where he tried to win the church to his views. He thought the creator-God of the Jewish scriptures a different being from the merciful Father revealed by Jesus and rejected the whole Jewish scriptureMarcion's repudiation of the Jewish scripture, which had long been the Bible of the church, leads to the reassertion of its authority
2 Timothy was written to disclaim Marcion’s teachings.
The Pastoral Letters accomplish this. They disown Marcion and his chief positions in the name of Paul; "There is but one God," I Tim. 2:5; "All scripture is divinely inspired," II Tim. 3:16. "Keep away from the .... contradictions [Antitheses]," I Tim. 6:20. In this way Paul himself is made to disclaim Marcion.
Do we have the right to change the original purpose or meaning of an author's work, especially one supposedly inspired by God, to support current dogma and tradition?
If one truly believes that the authors in the Bible compilation were inspired by God, shouldn't they remain true to the purpose of the work?
IMO the term "Bible Inerrancy" is being portrayed incorrectly given the meaning of errant.
Webster’s Dictionary
Errant — 2. erring or straying from what is right
NOTE: This thread is not, not, not, not, not, did I say NOT, about whether the Bible IS inerrant or whether it does or does not contradict "itself."
I don’t want to get into the same old arguments on ancient "typos" or lack of scientific accuracy.
Hopefully I haven't put in too many questions, but I think they are related.
I would like this in the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum. Thanks
™ Version 4.2