| Exploring Christianity A Forum for Non Christians to explore Christianity with Christians. |  | 
9th December 2008, 11:07 PM
| ![[serious]'s Avatar](http://www.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif) | 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

| | Join Date: 29th August 2006
Posts: 9,278
Blessings: 42,374 My Mood
Reps: 38,606,663,309,400,088 (power: 38,606,663,309,416) | | | On biblical infallibility... Where does this idea come from? | 
10th December 2008, 01:14 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE 58 
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,627,143
Blessings: 9,464 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,410) | | Originally Posted by [serious] Where does this idea come from? P1: God is infallible.
P2: God wrote the Bible.
C1: The Bible is infallible.
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT | 
10th December 2008, 02:02 AM
| ![[serious]'s Avatar](http://www.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif) | 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

| | Join Date: 29th August 2006
Posts: 9,278
Blessings: 42,374 My Mood
Reps: 38,606,663,309,400,088 (power: 38,606,663,309,416) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET P1: God is infallible.
P2: God wrote the Bible.
C1: The Bible is infallible.
yes, I understand what the idea is, but that isn't the question. Where did the idea that the bible is infallible originate? | 
10th December 2008, 07:57 AM
|  | Missionary Heart 37  | | Join Date: 26th November 2006 Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 76,612 My Mood
Reps: 27,528,671,136,865,976 (power: 27,528,671,136,874) | | | A combination of the above, and multiple scriptures ... "All Scripture is God-breathed ...", Jesus making arguments that rely upon the very letters and less of certain passages being exact, there are many passages that speak to this sort of thing.
Now, no one (at least no serious scholar) claims infalability for the versions that we have today. We claim infalability of the original autographs. Our Bibles today are infallable in so much as they adhere to those originals. There have been a couple of minor copyists errors here and there that we know of. However, the art and science of studying and comparing the tens of thousands of manuscripts we have give us a very high degree of assurance that what we have is very nearly what was originally penned. For instance, in the New Testament, there is question or debate on less than 2% of the text, and those passages that are somewhat in question, even if every single one were removed, would not endanger or alter or cause us to call into questioning any single orthodox teaching of the historic Christian faith.
__________________ "A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death, the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders we are not going to be judged. The Marxist creed has now been inverted. The true opium of modernity is the belief that there is no God, so that humans are free to do precisely as they please."
Nobel Prize winner Czeslaw Milosz
"I can almost forgive the palistinians for killing our children. I can never forgive them for making us kill theirs." Golda Meir | 
10th December 2008, 08:45 AM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE 58 
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,627,143
Blessings: 9,464 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,857,410) | | Originally Posted by [serious] yes, I understand what the idea is, but that isn't the question. Where did the idea that the bible is infallible originate?
I guess I don't understand your question now.
Does this help? Originally Posted by John 10:35b ... the scripture cannot be broken;
__________________ THE BIBLE SAYS IT ... THAT SETTLES IT | 
10th December 2008, 10:03 AM
| ![[serious]'s Avatar](http://www.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif) | 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

| | Join Date: 29th August 2006
Posts: 9,278
Blessings: 42,374 My Mood
Reps: 38,606,663,309,400,088 (power: 38,606,663,309,416) | | Originally Posted by BereanTodd A combination of the above, and multiple scriptures ... "All Scripture is God-breathed ...", Jesus making arguments that rely upon the very letters and less of certain passages being exact, there are many passages that speak to this sort of thing.
Now, no one (at least no serious scholar) claims infalability for the versions that we have today. We claim infalability of the original autographs. Our Bibles today are infallable in so much as they adhere to those originals. There have been a couple of minor copyists errors here and there that we know of. However, the art and science of studying and comparing the tens of thousands of manuscripts we have give us a very high degree of assurance that what we have is very nearly what was originally penned. For instance, in the New Testament, there is question or debate on less than 2% of the text, and those passages that are somewhat in question, even if every single one were removed, would not endanger or alter or cause us to call into questioning any single orthodox teaching of the historic Christian faith.
The problem I see with the bible being used to support the idea (well, aside from being circular logic) is that those passages would have been referring to the scripture as it stood back then. Paul was certainly not meaning to claim that his letter to Timothy amounted to scripture. Even jumping forward to the choosing of the books for the new testament at the council of Nicea, they made no claim to infallibility in their selection. | 
10th December 2008, 10:13 AM
|  | Missionary Heart 37  | | Join Date: 26th November 2006 Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 2,505
Blessings: 76,612 My Mood
Reps: 27,528,671,136,865,976 (power: 27,528,671,136,874) | | Originally Posted by [serious] The problem I see with the bible being used to support the idea (well, aside from being circular logic) is that those passages would have been referring to the scripture as it stood back then. Paul was certainly not meaning to claim that his letter to Timothy amounted to scripture. Even jumping forward to the choosing of the books for the new testament at the council of Nicea, they made no claim to infallibility in their selection.
Peter in 2 Peter claims that Paul's writtings were Scripture though ...
__________________ "A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death, the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders we are not going to be judged. The Marxist creed has now been inverted. The true opium of modernity is the belief that there is no God, so that humans are free to do precisely as they please."
Nobel Prize winner Czeslaw Milosz
"I can almost forgive the palistinians for killing our children. I can never forgive them for making us kill theirs." Golda Meir | 
10th December 2008, 10:34 AM
| ![[serious]'s Avatar](http://www.christianforums.com/cache/customavatars/avatar160873_6.gif) | 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

| | Join Date: 29th August 2006
Posts: 9,278
Blessings: 42,374 My Mood
Reps: 38,606,663,309,400,088 (power: 38,606,663,309,416) | | Originally Posted by BereanTodd Peter in 2 Peter claims that Paul's writtings were Scripture though ...
Thank you, but that seems only to push back the question a little. Peter was not calling his own letter infallible.
One more question, we know that the council of Nicea made no claim to infallibility and we know that many letters were rejected for inclusion and others, while rejected, were included as apocrypha. At what point did the selection of what now constitutes the new testament get accepted as infallible? |  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |