The Christian topic permalink
The Infallibility of Scripture
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi everyone,
Just posting to ask how many Christians here believe in the Infallibility of Scripture? It was something I was always taught to believe but have become less certain about.
If we believe as I presume we do that the books of the bible were not dictated straight from the mouth of God then the books are man’s interpretations of God. Therefore they are no more infallible then our interpretations. However we must of course remember that these people were particularly close to God and therefore have a lot to teach us.
Just wondering what everyone thought.
Thanks,
Snowman42
-
Message 2
Posted by miles sinclair (U1186550) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
And why not believe the Koran which is the words of God as dictated by the Angel Gabriel?
m -
Message 3
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
snowman42.
The Holy Bible is the inerrant, infallible, and authoritative word of God.
All other books and writings are inferior to God's word, the Bible.
Only false theories contradict the Holy Bible. -
Message 4
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi milessinclair,
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough but this is the Christian topic and I was talking about the Bible. I fail to see how you jumped to the topic of Islam.
But to answer your question I don't believe in the Koran because I do not believe it was dictated by the Angel Gabriel.
Snowman42 -
Message 5
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi Luther_Wesley-Baxter,
Thank you for posting. Just wondering where in the bible do any of the authors say their words are infallible? Is there a verse, if so would you be kind enough to quote it. If not what are you basing you opinion on?
snowman42
-
Message 6
Posted by miles sinclair (U1186550) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Just wondering why you think it is better to try and interpret the words of the Bible, written by men under "inspiration", than to just read the words of God as dictated in the Koran?
m -
Message 7
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
snowman42.
Over 2,000 times in the Holy Bible it says
"God said", or "the word of the Lord said." -
Message 8
Posted by Mally (U11631854) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
hi
Snow man
2 tim 3:16 "all scripture is inspired of god and is benificial for teaching,reproving......... -
Message 9
Posted by Iain (U10891042) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
The Holy Bible is the inerrant, infallible, and authoritative word of God.
All other books and writings are inferior to God's word, the Bible.
Only false theories contradict the Holy Bible.
Despite all the evidence showing its been drafted, redrafted, edited, re-edited, translated, retranslated over the two thousand and a bit years its thought to have existed?
Work of a God? No
Work of many many men? Yes -
Message 10
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi milessinclair,
Once again you are making the assumption that the Koran is the dictated words of God. As I understand it the words were only heard by one person, alone, in a cave. To me that does not cut it as proof. I do however believe in the God of the Bible. Therefore I am willing to try and interpret it.
Snowman42
-
Message 11
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Iain.
I'm not talking about those dodgy versions with hundreds of verses missing.
I'm talking about the version that God has protected,
and preserved for thousnds of years. Matthew 24:35 -
Message 12
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi Luther,
However the people how wrote it down often were not there to hear it first hand. Therefore I don't think they would ever claim they never got anything wrong.
Hi Mally,
The quote is good and one I agree with. However just because it is inspired by God does not mean it is infallible. I may be inspired to paint a picture but that does not mean it would be photographically accurate.
Snowman42
-
Message 13
Posted by Iain (U10891042) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter
Hi mate.
I'm not talking about those dodgy versions with hundreds of verses missing.
I'm talking about the version that God has protected,
and preserved for thousnds of years. Matthew 24:35
Could I ask which version that is? Could you point me to it.
And also, what do you think of all the "early versions" of the bible that have come to light and the gospels we know to exist but were not included in most of the later bible versions
Cheers! -
Message 14
Posted by planting_seeds (U14023403) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I'm not talking about those dodgy versions with hundreds of verses missing.
I'm talking about the version that God has protected
Hi there Luther - when discussing the Bible in the context of its infallibility, I think it is only fair to discuss those scriptures which did not become part of the Bible after the Council of Nicea, the books which are used in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles that are not generally used by the Protestant Church, as well as the impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.
Making blanket statements does not answer the perfectly natural (and reasonable) questions of non-Christians who are naturally curious to understand, and Christians who are seeking to better understand their faith. -
Message 15
Posted by Tazz29 (U14062723) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
In the beginning man created god - religionists of any flavour have no way of possibly knowing that their holy texts are valid. All they have is the insidious indoctrination and dogma that has engendered in them a Faith. Religions belong to a time when the human race was in its infancy. The sooner we can dump this nonsense the sooner we can move forward as a species.
-
Message 16
Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
For me and for, I suspect, most Christians, the bible is our "rule of faith and guide in conduct".
In other words, parts are inerrant, and parts are subject to interpretative application. -
Message 17
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Iain.
eg The New International Version, and the New World Translation,
both have hundreds of verses missing.
-
Message 18
Posted by mathetes (U5563141) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
snowman
If we believe as I presume we do that the books of the bible were not dictated straight from the mouth of God then the books are man’s interpretations of God. Therefore they are no more infallible then our interpretations.
If you think that the books are man's interpretations of God, what do you make of these claims?
"And we also thank God continually because, whe n you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the words of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe" (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For all men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever. And this is the word that was preached to you." (1 Peter 1:23-25). -
Message 19
Posted by Leonard James (U1723043) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
If you think that the books are man's interpretations of God, what do you make of these claims?
That they are what the writers believed to be true.
-
Message 20
Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter
eg The New International Version, and the New World Translation,
both have hundreds of verses missing
The assertion that there are verses missing from the NIV is palpably untrue. They are usually made by people who prefer the KJV. Unfortunately, one of the deficiencies of the KJV is that its manuscripts (compiled in haste and later regretted and reissued by Eusebius) contain a number of scribal insertions that are not found in the original manuscripts. For interest and example, the following verses (among others) do not appear in the early Greek manuscripts:
Matthew 17: 21
Matthew 18: 11
Matthew 23: 14
Mark 7: 16
Mark 9: 44, 46
Mark 11: 26
Mark 15: 28
Luke 17: 36
Luke 23: 17
John 5: 3b, 4
Acts 8: 37
Acts 15: 34
Acts 24: 7
Acts 28: 29
Romans: 16: 24
1 John 5: 7
As for “hundreds” of differences between the KJV and NIV – piffle!
If you continue to assert that there are, perhaps you will list them.
-
Message 21
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Preacher.
I'm not going to list all those verses, suffice to say that
if your Bible has any of the following verses missing,
then it is translated from the faulty manuscripts.
Matthew 12:47
Mark 9:44
Luke 24:12
John 5:4
Acts 8:37 etc etc.
-
Message 22
Posted by Iain (U10891042) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Iain.
eg The New International Version, and the New World Translation,
both have hundreds of verses missing
I meant "which bible is the "True word of god" to you then. If your god has protected his word, which of the hundreds of different versions is "his true word"?
And again, what do you make of all the texts that didn't make it or were dropped from the bibes in the early years of Christianity? i.e. Gospel of Judas, Gospel of the Ebionites etc -
Message 23
Posted by grannieval (U3909013) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I think that all the God given laws and revelation to His Prophets does still exist in the Bible and other - now excluded - religious texts.
It is human nature that 2 people witnessing 1 event will have different descriptions and ideas about it. Unfortunately the Bible also now contains a lot of material written by human beings to describe and explain their understanding of God's laws and revelations.
Over the centuries since the revelation took place many different interpretations have developed. Those in authority at different times have edited and amended the revelation as they see fit and this is still going on today -
Message 24
Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter. As the books of the NT were written decades after Jesus by people who never met him, can any of them be trusted?
As to god-inspired, that just proves that you have never read the bible. -
Message 25
Posted by mathetes (U5563141) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Bernard
As the books of the NT were written decades after Jesus by people who never met him
This is obviously a favourite mantra of yours (someone might believe it if you repeat it often enough!).
Why do you believe that none of the NT writers met Jesus? -
Message 26
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi everyone,
I think just from this thread we can determine something. Each of you disagrees with each other about maters of interpretation. You each say that your interpretation of "God's word" the bible is true, correct, real. This is also what the writers of the Bible would believe. That their interpretation of Jewish scripture and Jesus' teachings were accurate. The fact that so many of you are doing the exact same thing now I think proves my point.
Snowman42
-
Message 27
Posted by Iain (U10891042) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Snowman.
Some of think its all "untrue" -
Message 28
Posted by snowman42 (U13765498) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I'm well aware.
-
Message 29
Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter
I'm not going to list all those verses, suffice to say that if your Bible has any of the following verses missing, then it is translated from the faulty manuscripts.
Matthew 12:47 Mark 9:44 Luke 24:12 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 etc etc.
Of the five verses you cite, three of them (Mark, John, Acts) were included in Textus Receptus version 1 in error, (subsequently removed by Eusebius and all later scholars). The Matthew and Luke verses appear in the NIV.
You really must take a careful look at the KJV. It is the weakest of all the common translations, since it is based on inadequate manuscripts.
Look up 1 John 5:7-8. There is not a biblical scholar in the world who disagrees that it is an insertion, probably picked up erroneously in the late mediaeval period from an annotated copy of the Latin Vulgate. Ask your pastor.
That is not to say that the KJV is valueless: it is simply outdated by more and better manuscripts discovered since Textus Receptus. If the translators of 1611 were here now, they wouldn’t use the TR. They would use the better manuscripts available today. Their methodology (see the dedication to King James) was to take the English Great Bible of 1539 and compare it with the latest manuscripts. These manuscripts were Eusebius’ version 1 of the TR, which were demanded of him before he was happy with them (James was impatient for results). Indeed he disassociated himself from the KJV precisely on the grounds that his edition of the manuscripts needed three or four more years’ work.
-
Message 30
Posted by mathetes (U5563141) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Preacher
Don't you mean Erasmus rather than Eusebius? -
Message 31
Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Iain
what do you make of all the texts that didn't make it or were dropped from the bibes in the early years of Christianity? i.e. Gospel of Judas, Gospel of the Ebionites etc
I don’t know how many times this point has been explained. The criterion that qualifed a documenbt to be included in the New Testament was that it was written by an eye-witness or the disciple of an eye-witness. Thus the various pseud-gospels were excluded because they were either forgeries and recognised as such by those who were qualified to write an includable document, or patently writtn as works of devotional fiction. The included books had to have a discerible doctrinal content as well.
The “gospels” of Mary, Thomas, Ebionites, Judas et al; the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas; and many other documents failed the inclusion tests defined above. Some of them have useful information about the early church and its practices (esp the Didache).
-
Message 32
Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
mathetes
Preacher
Don't you mean Erasmus rather than Eusebius?
YES! Sorry sorry sorry! I was probably thinking of the great Portuguese footballer of similar name.
Erasmus
Erasmus
Erasmus ... -
Message 33
Posted by Torah (U14059169) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter
I'm talking about the version that God has protected,
Which one is that?
-
Message 34
Posted by Torah (U14059169) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Just wondering what everyone thought.
The transmission of Scripture is not inerrant – that is very clear for all to see. But an inerrant transmission of Scripture was not promised either.
The original documents were inspired. But we do not have them any more.
But we have textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.
Experts in this field tells us that what we do have was amazingly well preserved. So the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized.
No translation is or can be perfect either. , But we are fortunate to have a host of excellent translations and have no cause to conclude that the true Word of God is out of our reach.
-
Message 35
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Guerre.
It's the KJV.
Because it's the only English formal translation of the apostolic Received Text. -
Message 36
Posted by Torah (U14059169) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter
It's the KJV.
Because it's the only English formal translation of the apostolic Received Text.
That is the same as the majority text?
I have never made a study to see which translations are based on this. I know that the early church father almost exclusively quoted from the apostolic Received Text. About 30000 citations giving much legitimacy to that text.
I know one of the oldest ever translations the Syrian Peshitta also correspond with that text.
-
Message 37
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Guerre.
Yes, the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, the apostolic Text,
also known as the Majority Text, because over 95% of the manuscripts
are from this particular stream. -
Message 38
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
'If we believe as I presume we do that the books of the bible were not dictated straight from the mouth of God then the books are man’s interpretations of God. Therefore they are no more infallible then our interpretations.'
Exactly. Very well-put.
'However we must of course remember that these people were particularly close to God'
Were they? How do you know that?
'.. and therefore have a lot to teach us.'
...not necessarily.
-
Message 39
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Luther, you've already been told that the 'Textus Receptus' is a mediaeval compilation of late and unreliable Greek manuscripts. It's far from being an original or faultless text.
-
Message 40
Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Just to clear up a few issues; the 'Bible' as we know it (at least that form which we can see in our own modern versions) was, at the earliest, a creation of the second century CE. In the time of Jesus there were many variant texts of specific books, and several major textual transmissions. There were no such things as 'originals'. Standardization of the OT texts only occured long after Jesus' lifetime. It is thus anachronistic to speak of Jesus having a 'Bible', and, even if he could read, it is erroneous to imagine that there was one textual tradition which represented 'the infalliable text' of a particular book.
-
Message 41
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
smittims.
Nonsense. The KJV is an English formal translation of the apostolic Received Text. -
Message 42
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Hi, Luther, message 17, you claim the New International Version has 'hundreds ' of verses missing.
This is untrue. Although I don't recommend the NIV it is the complete text of the 66 books recognised by the Protestant churches. Ther are no missing verses. -
Message 43
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
'The KJV is an English formal translation of the apostolic Received Text.'
No, it's a translation of the Textus Receptus, which dates back only to Erasmus,not the Apostles.
An example is 1 John 5, v.7. This came from a Spanish manuscript which was copied into the Vulgate. It is not in any early manuscripts of the New Testament. -
Message 44
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
I had not seen Preacher's more explanatory and helpful message 29 when I posted as above. I agree with what he says there.
-
Message 45
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
smittims.
You say that there are no verses missing in the NIV.
OK. I will give you an example. Where is Acts 8:37 in the NIV? -
Message 46
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
'Where is Acts 8:37 in the NIV?'
It's on page 1102 in our copy.
You did say 'hundreds' didn't you? So far we've not found one.
-
Message 47
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
smittims.
What does Acts 8:37 say in your copy of the New International Version? -
Message 48
Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Acts 8 v 37 NIV:
'Philip said , "If you believe with all your heart, you may " The eunuch answered, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" '.
This verse is also in the Revised English Bible and New Revised Standard Version.
I hope you will now withdraw your claim that the NIV has 'hundreds' of verses missing.
-
Message 49
Posted by Preacher (U2899850) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Luther_Wesley-Baxter
What does Acts 8:37 say in your copy of the New International Version?
Acts 8:37 has little Greek manuscript support. The earliest manuscripts do not contain it. It first appears in “Codex E”, which is no earlier than the 6th century (as far as I ca discern). I quote from a scholarly work:
In the Text und Textwert editions published by Aland and her Institute for NT Textual Studies, the results for Acts 8:37 show that 417 (87%) of the First Millennium manuscripts (up to 999 AD) omit the text, and 64 (13%) include it, with Codex E the only one prior to the 9th century.
Acts 8:37 is clearly a late addition and was one of the verses included in error by Erasmus (got his name right this time!) when the TR was produced. He removed it in his 2nd edition.
This is a specific verse that the KJV contains that should not be there. The KJV is far from perfect.
-
Message 50
Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.
www.exminister.org/F...
It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
About this Board
The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.
They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.
Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Opening times:
No longer applicable
This messageboard is post-moderated.
Find out more about this board's House Rules
Search this Board
BBC iD
BBC iDbbc.co.uk navigation
BBC links
BBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.