Given your professed modus operandi above, then you bleating… “If the Bible is not infallible then how do we know what’s true?” is REDUNDANT!
And your further… “If the Bible is not infallible then anything goes.” — what a laugh, as anything goes is again your proven modus operandi.
One thing I found interesting about the belief that the Bible is infallible is this: Revelations warns about adding or subtracting to that book. Since when does a warning from God (Bible) actually work to restrain evil? To reiterate, God says (Bible) not to do a lot if things. But not one person could stop from doing things that are wrong and against his warnings. For all have sinned, according to Romans. Shouldn’t that be evidence enough that Revelations was probably tampered with and by extension, the rest of the canon?
Why by extension the entire canon? Because by the same logic that people take Paul’s meaning to include all 66 books when he says “All scripture is God breathed…” Can and should be applied to Revelations warning, otherwise it is dishonest.
Davo’s right imo.
There is also a case to be made that the better translation is:
“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”
And notice that Paul is not claiming inerrancy - he is pointing to the usefulness of scripture.
Exactly right, since the bible doesn’t claim inerrancy why should it even be an issue? It does claim to be true and I think it is.
Still no answers to my questions. I wonder why?
If you read my post correctly, the statements you mention are the responses of those who believe the Bible is infallible.
If the Bible does contain errors how would you know?
AG, It also says this in Deut. 12:32 " Whatever I command you, be careful to observe; you shall not add to it or take away from it."
So Jesus and the NT writers would be in violation of this.
Dave, So the eye for an eye as mentioned here:
should still be taught as the way of righteousness?
It does claim to be true
This is an easy mistake to fall into in these discussions. “The Bible” is not one thing. It is a mishmash of writings by many different people (some of whom we don’t even know who they were) that we have decided to lump together.
Thus you cannot take a statement in one part of it and assume that it applies to all of it. For instance, take the bit at the end of Revelation referenced by @Agnostic_Gabe about not adding or subtracting from the words of the scroll. That’s just talking about the contents of Revelation, not the entire Bible.
By the way, citing that verse as authoritative assumes that the book of Revelation is in fact inspired by God. And it further assumes that the bit at the end, that’s quoted, is not merely John’s own thoughts, or a misunderstanding on his part, of some kind.
It’s funny… Biblical infallibility was something I based my entire life around, every major decision I made, growing up. And yet it seems to fall apart so easily…
I sincerely hope someone can prove me wrong about this.
Nope, and you know it. And why.
tomatohorse, it also applies to what Moses commanded as I mentioned here:
I believe it’s said in other places as well.
Dave, am I correct to assume that you believe the Bible is infallible?
Infallible: never failing: always effective.
If it is infallible then the words I mentioned in Lev. are still effective.
Should we still be burning incense because according to Exodus 30:8 " And when Aaron lights the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense on it, a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout you generations. Perpetual: lasting for eternity, never ending.
However, according to Isaiah 1:13 incense is an abomination to God, and he who burns incense is as if he blesses an idol.(Isaiah 66:3)
Right, but you need to use the arguments of the people you may be debating with. I very well know that it applies to a singular work, this has always been the go-to argument. But if you can leverage someone else’s (for example, nearly every Evangelical church I have attended uses Timothy to solidify the 66 books, and all fundamentalists do) arguments, then you may be able to show them what seems to you and me, a contradiction.
In other words, if they can take a statement from a single book and apply it to the other 65, then I can do the same with Revelations, and Deut, right? If that stands, then my question is an interesting one. Do people generally heed God’s (as defined as the Bible) warnings? If not, then why should we think the Bible has not been tampered with?
We probably should view the take…of the non-denominational site - Got Questions:
Let me quote their definition. You can read their explanation for yourselves.
The word infallible means “incapable of error.” If something is infallible, it is never wrong and thus absolutely trustworthy. Similarly, the word inerrant , also applied to Scripture, means “free from error.” Simply put, the Bible never fails.
The lens I view the Bible through…is the same lens, the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics do:
How? Being studious I would read, consult and weigh up the evidence as teased out by expert scholars, theologians, and critics etc, allowing their considerations to inform my own thinking — that as opposed to just arrogantly assuming my own understanding automatically knows best.
The example you give has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the bible, it only means we have to be careful to read things in context.
LLC - NO! I don’t believe the Bible is ‘infallible’ in the way you define that term.
So @steve7150, why do you believe the Bible is infallible?
BTW, traditionally, “inerrant” is the stronger claim, stating that the Bible contains no errors whatsoever. “Infallible” allows for some minor mistakes in things like numbers, places, pre-scientific understandings of the world, etc. but says that there are no mistakes or inaccuracies in matters of faith, practice, and doctrine.
I said the bible is true just as an historical account of WW2 might be true. By true i don’t mean every insignificant detail but that the important things are true. Obviously visions,dreams or actual experiences were recorded by human authors who could have misunderstood something so that’s why we look for validation by other biblical writers if possible.
I would link to the full essay, but nobody follows links ;-( , so I will paste a short excerpt. The following is, I think, a useful way to approach the Bible, rather than trying to force it into a thought-mold of some sort:
We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now made on its infinite connexions, we may observe, that its style nowhere affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, and figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the literal sense, than that of our own age and country, and consequently demanding more continual exercise of judgment. – We find, too, that the different portions of this book, instead of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the times when they were written, to states of society, to modes of thinking, to controversies in the church, to feelings and usages which have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of extending to all times, and places, what was of temporary and local application. – We find, too, that some of these books are strongly marked by the genius and character of their respective writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so guide the Apostles as to suspend the peculiarities of their minds, and that a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences under which they were placed, is one of the preparations for understanding their writings. With these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true meaning; and, in general, to make use of what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering new truths.
My own seminary (Fuller) provocatively changed its’ statement of faith to affirm infallibility instead of inerrancy (and distinguish its’ teaching from more trivial details).
Still, I now see the Bible as containing beliefs and rules that vary amid differing times and writers. Thus, my impression is that the way infallibilists (as well as inerrantists) typically cite particular texts as proof of ultimate truths is problematic. It often seems that even the assertion that its’ teaching is ‘infallible’ dies the death of a thousand qualifications.
Here’s what Wiki says at:
From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that infallibility is a stronger term than inerrancy . “‘Inerrant’ means there are no errors; ‘infallible’ means there can be no errors.” Yet he agrees that “modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than ‘inerrancy.’”[2] Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[3] This contrasts with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of the phenomenological nature of the biblical narratives.[3] For example, Davis suggests: “The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.”[4] In this sense it is seen as distinct from biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, “Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.”[5]
I guess we need, to define our terms - and agree on them. Perhaps there would be less confusion, if these two agreed - upon the definition of “long distance”.
@Bob_Wilson Exactly. What ends up happening is that everything in the Bible becomes so open to interpretation that we are left with is wishy washy. Something that is hardly more authoritative than a self help bestseller from the local bookstore. And that’s fine, if that’s what is actually true about the Bible.
I’m wondering if there is anyone who has a strong view of inerrancy / infallibility, and can give a good reason for it?