What is Open Theism position on inerrancy of scripture?

[Cygnus]

No, it is not inerrant.

I appreciate your candor.

The definition of inerrant and infallible I provided, and to which your response is made in reference to is the following…

In regards the scriptures; inerrant/inerrancy means that the scriptures do not affirm any errors, and infallible/infallibility means the scriptures are incapable of erring.

Because infallibility is the stronger term by definition, your negative response to the term inerrancy, means a denial of both, in regards to the veracity of the bible you read personally.

But it is still reliable and authoritative.

On what basis is it reliable, and authoritative?

You believe your personal bible affirms errors and is in fact incapable of not affirming errors.

 

[Right Divider]

I appreciate your candor.

The definition of inerrant and infallible I provided, and to which your response is made in reference to is the following…

In regards the scriptures; inerrant/inerrancy means that the scriptures do not affirm any errors, and infallible/infallibility means the scriptures are incapable of erring.

Because infallibility is the stronger term by definition, your negative response to the term inerrancy, means a denial of both, in regards to the veracity of the bible you read personally.

On what basis is it reliable, and authoritative?

You believe your personal bible affirms errors and is in fact incapable of not affirming errors.

At what age did Jehoiachin begin to reign as king?

2Kgs 24:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:8) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name [was] Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.​

2Chr 36:9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(36:9) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did [that which was] evil in the sight of the LORD.​

 

[Derf]

The study of the Bible is central to Christianity and our understanding of God and the world we live in.
From my studies it is evident that there is uniform agreement within the broad spectrum of the Christian community that the original autographs (manuscripts) were inerrant and infallible being directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There is some disagreement among many Christians whether or not the Bible we have in our hands today can reliably be considered inerrant and infallible.
What is the position of the Open Theism community regards this pivotal issue?

Let's assume that open theists are like the rest of the Christian population, as you describe. What point are you trying to make? If the bible we have is not useful, because it has significant errors, additions, or missing parts, then open theists are in the same condition every other type of theist is--that we can't trust the bible, and therefore all of us are going purely off of personal observation and opinion, and so it doesn't really matter.

However, if the bible we have is trustworthy, then we have an authoritative source for our understanding of God, and as such, open theism is more in line with the bible we have than determinism, which is the antithesis of open theism.

 

[Cygnus]

At what age did Jehoiachin begin to reign as king?

2Kgs 24:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:8) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name [was] Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.​

2Chr 36:9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(36:9) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did [that which was] evil in the sight of the LORD.​

Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign as co-regent, and 18 years old when he began to reign alone.

The practice of the reigning king appointing a co-regent for various reasons is not unprecedented, examples being found in 1 Kings 1:33-40 and 2 Chronicles 26:21.

While we have no specific scriptural reference explicitly saying so, such as the examples given, it is a plausible explanation, especially considering the tumultuous and uncertain political environment at that time; and can be gleaned from the scripture itself, by recognising the bolded phrase (below) as the fixed reference point, or constant, and the variable (ages) as indicating the factual existence of that period of co-regency of 10 years.

2Kgs 24:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(24:8) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name [was] Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2Chr 36:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(36:9) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did [that which was] evil in the sight of the LORD.

There is no contradiction or error.

 

[Cygnus]

Let's assume that open theists are like the rest of the Christian population, as you describe. What point are you trying to make? If the bible we have is not useful, because it has significant errors, additions, or missing parts, then open theists are in the same condition every other type of theist is--that we can't trust the bible, and therefore all of us are going purely off of personal observation and opinion, and so it doesn't really matter.

However, if the bible we have is trustworthy, then we have an authoritative source for our understanding of God, and as such, open theism is more in line with the bible we have than determinism, which is the antithesis of open theism.

The first words the deceiver and father of lies Satan speaks are - “Yea, hath God said…”

Why?

What is the attack vector?

 

[Derf]

The first words the deceiver and father of lies Satan speaks are - “Yea, hath God said…”

Why?

What is the attack vector?

And?

 

[Derf]

Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign as co-regent, and 18 years old when he began to reign alone.

The practice of the reigning king appointing a co-regent for various reasons is not unprecedented, examples being found in 1 Kings 1:33-40 and 2 Chronicles 26:21.

While we have no specific scriptural reference explicitly saying so, such as the examples given, it is a plausible explanation, especially considering the tumultuous and uncertain political environment at that time; and can be gleaned from the scripture itself, by recognising the bolded phrase (below) as the fixed reference point, or constant, and the variable (ages) as indicating the factual existence of that period of co-regency of 10 years.

2Kgs 24:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(24:8) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name [was] Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2Chr 36:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(36:9) ¶ Jehoiachin [was] eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did [that which was] evil in the sight of the LORD.

There is no contradiction or error.

No, what you are suggesting is that the Bible does not have enough information to fully interpret it, and that you have some special knowledge that you can add, but we can't verify the source. Why is that a better solution than admitting some mistakes have crept in that don't change the message?

 

[Cygnus]

And?

Why does the deceiver, and father of lies, who was a murder from the beginning, approach Eve with that attack vector?

Think about it.

 

[Cygnus]

No, what you are suggesting is that the Bible does not have enough information to fully interpret it, and that you have some special knowledge that you can add, but we can't verify the source. Why is that a better solution than admitting some mistakes have crept in that don't change the message?

On the contrary... I am affirming that the living God upholds the integrity and veracity of his written word to such an extent that it remains inerrant and infallible to this day and forever.

The living God, in the flesh, Jesus of Nazareth said - "...and the scripture can not be broken..."

 

[Right Divider]

1Ki 4:26 (KJV) And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2Ch 9:25 (KJV) And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

 

[Cygnus]

Well it looks like I am going to be confronted with innumerable scriptures to challenge my assertion of the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture.
This will definitely be more than a little challenging for me, I don't feel overly anxious at the moment, but that could change dramatically once the sedatives wear out later today...... Oh no just the thought of that has my respiratory rate increasing at an uncomfortably rate..... and what I just thought was some frantic knocking at the door turned out to be nothing more than my heart pounding on my ribcage.

Nevertheless.... Iron sharpens iron.... and I asked the Lord to help me this morning with the previous scripture challenge... and I guess I will be making a lot more requests like that.... calming down a bit now.... but still a little anxious.

I have a 45 year old female friend, hooker and heroin addict... despite all that I care about her... she saved my life once...she has a fabulous and eclectic taste in music... through her adoration of Leonard Cohen and me taking the time to consider just what it could be that entranced her so with his songs... I actually overcame my long standing distaste for his music... it seems a little exposure at just the right time and in just the right set of circumstances was a combination that resonated with my soul... and I am reminded here right now... of a beautiful lyric from a song called To a Teacher which captures my approach to this very difficult challenge I face here...it first appealed to me because it beautifully captured the difficult task I had set myself in that I promised her that I would fight for her life (extricate her from a life of addiction and the prostitution to fuel it) as she had fought for mine... it makes my eyes leak just to think about it... it's been seven years since now... anyways perhaps these lyrics will resonate with you... considering the parallel between the two difficult tasks which are both ongoing before me now... and recognising that without the LORD we can do nothing... and so... knowing Him...and knowing that the LORD is with me... I will proceed in faith.


I have entered under this dark roof
As fearlessly as an honoured son enters his fathers house

.........

 

[Derf]

Why does the deceiver, and father of lies, who was a murder from the beginning, approach Eve with that attack vector?

Think about it.

On the contrary... I am affirming that the living God upholds the integrity and veracity of his written word to such an extent that it remains inerrant and infallible to this day and forever.

The living God, in the flesh, Jesus of Nazareth said - "...and the scripture can not be broken..."

What does any of this have to do with open theism?

 

[Cygnus]

1Ki 4:26 (KJV) And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2Ch 9:25 (KJV) And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

This appears to illustrate a different accounting method regards data entry, to use a modern parlance.
This can be gleaned from the different prepositions used in the bolded phrase below.
The stalls “of” horses would be the entry for individual animals within an individual stall.
The stalls “for” horses would be the entry for groups of 10 animals in a larger enclosure or barn type structure.
The ratio is 10 to 1 and I believe the arithmetic of the Egyptians and the Persians was based on what we would call the decimal system with 10 and its derivatives being fundamental units.

1Ki 4:26 (KJV) And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2Ch 9:25 (KJV) And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

 

[Cygnus]

What does any of this have to do with open theism?

What does Jesus statement "...and the scripture can not be broken..." have to do with open theism? Is that your question?
How odd to think such a thing...

 

[Derf]

What does Jesus statement "...and the scripture can not be broken..." have to do with open theism? Is that your question?
How odd to think such a thing...

Why? At least, why anymore than any other doctrinal position?

Are you able to show how a scriptural misunderstanding that would lead one falsely to the open theist position is moot when one uses the "correct" translation? Or, if you're in favor of open theism, how the correct translation leads one to open theism? I just don't see how your question is of any significance to open theism one way or another.

 

[Derf]

This appears to illustrate a different accounting method regards data entry, to use a modern parlance.
This can be gleaned from the different prepositions used in the bolded phrase below.
The stalls “of” horses would be the entry for individual animals within an individual stall.
The stalls “for” horses would be the entry for groups of 10 animals in a larger enclosure or barn type structure.
The ratio is 10 to 1 and I believe the arithmetic of the Egyptians and the Persians was based on what we would call the decimal system with 10 and its derivatives being fundamental units.

1Ki 4:26 (KJV) And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2Ch 9:25 (KJV) And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Here's the Hebrew, translated "of horses", for 1Ki 4:26: סוּסִים
Here's the Hebrew, translated "for horses", for 2 Ch 9:25: סוּסִים
Can you show me where they differ?

 

[Cygnus]

Why? At least, why anymore than any other doctrinal position?

Ok… I understand what you’re getting at now.

The OP was a general enquiry - regarding inerrancy and infallibility, to gauge the degree of acceptance of that doctrine, or the degree of rejection of that doctrine, within the open theist community.

Whereas my comments to you regarding Satan’s first words “…Yea, hath God said…” - were to inculcate a remembrance (in YOUR mind) that the murderer and liar and deceiver Satan recognised the singular most important vector of attack was to plant a seed of doubt, in the negative sense…that is, with the intent to harm….to initiate, then precipitate, then propagate Eve’s alienation from God… the seed of doubt was planted by an enquiry - a simple question - to gauge how precise was her adherence to the explicit words that God had spoken.

Eve’s response deviated from God’s explicit words…her lack of precision…indicated her lack of adherence…her lack of adherence…gave space for a point of leverage…exactly what the murder, liar, and deceiver Satan NEEDED.

So YOU have a good long hard think about that.

I forgot to ask you - “In your opinion is God’s word inerrant and infallible?
.

 

[Derf]

Ok… I understand what you’re getting at now.

The OP was a general enquiry - regarding inerrancy and infallibility, to gauge the degree of acceptance of that doctrine, or the degree of rejection of that doctrine, within the open theist community.

Whereas my comments to you regarding Satan’s first words “…Yea, hath God said…” - were to inculcate a remembrance (in YOUR mind) that the murderer and liar and deceiver Satan recognised the singular most important vector of attack was to plant a seed of doubt, in the negative sense…that is, with the intent to harm….to initiate, then precipitate, then propagate Eve’s alienation from God… the seed of doubt was planted by an enquiry - a simple question - to gauge how precise was her adherence to the explicit words that God had spoken.

Eve’s response deviated from God’s explicit words…her lack of precision…indicated her lack of adherence…her lack of adherence…gave space for a point of leverage…exactly what the murder, liar, and deceiver Satan NEEDED.

So YOU have a good long hard think about that.

I forgot to ask you - “In your opinion is God’s word inerrant and infallible?
.

Why, are you trying to plant a seed of doubt with your inquiry?

 

[Cygnus]

Are you able to show how a scriptural misunderstanding that would lead one falsely to the open theist position is moot when one uses the "correct" translation? Or, if you're in favor of open theism, how the correct translation leads one to open theism? I just don't see how your question is of any significance to open theism one way or another.

Our understanding of the fundamental doctrines of God are derived from the entire corpus of scripture (the 66 books of the recognised cannon)
"To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)

Scripture interprets scripture, is the recognised maxim... the cross referencing of pertinent scripture references upon which these fundamental doctrines are built and anchored are multitudinous so as to act as an authentication system...so to speak.

In regards to the issue of translations - The LORD God Almighty Jesus Christ called me out of the tomb and took the scales of my eyes while I was reading the KJV translation in private, by grace alone, through faith alone...personally, that is all the verification I need in regards authentication that it is God's Word.

I regard myself as a KJV mostlyism proponent.

I have owned and used on a regular basis many different hard copy translations of the scriptures i.e. NASB - RSV - NKJV - MOFFAT Translation of the New Testament - The Living Bible Paraphrase - NIV - ESV - etc

I am sure many proponents of open theism use and value the KJV - that would indicate that the translation is not the issue in their particular case.

For me the KJV is THE preeminent English translation - and as a general rule it is the only version I purchase as a gift offering.

 

[Cygnus]

Why, are you trying to plant a seed of doubt with your inquiry?

Great question.

In what regard... specifically?