The Infallible Word of God versus Human Error

[Thijs Hottenhuis]

One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.

Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.

How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!

 

[Laodicean60]

how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally

I wouldn't it just creates arguments.

 

[timothyu]

It 'contains' the infallible word of God that we rarely hear, that His will is superior to our own self serving attitude. The Bible is also full of references of how man pursuing our own will has lead to one catastrophe after another. What other man tells us all revolves around what they think the narrative should be rather than focusing on Jesus' two simple commandments which sums up the whole book.

 

[chevyontheriver]

One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.

Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.

How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!

Fallible or infallible refers to people. Errant or inerrant refers to a text. So generally best to refer to the Bible as inerrant rather than infallible. The problem is the people who think they have the Bible all figured out. What they do have figured out is their own fallible interpretations of an inerrant text. So I might ask them if they are infallible, and if their interpretation is protected by infallibility. Question their ability to interpret more than questioning the text.

 

[Thijs Hottenhuis]

I wouldn't it just creates arguments.

Well, I certainly don't want to start arguments, I just talk with a lot of people, online and offline, and then these things come up. Then I want to start a dialogue, not an argument, with those people. Thanks for your feedback though.

 

[Thijs Hottenhuis]

It 'contains' the infallible word of God that we rarely hear, that His will is superior to our own self serving attitude. The Bible is also full of references of how man pursuing our own will has lead to one catastrophe after another. What other man tells us all revolves around what they think the narrative should be rather than focusing on Jesus' two simple commandments which sums up the whole book.

Thank you, yes, I surely see that pursuing another will than God's Will gets us into big trouble.

 

[Thijs Hottenhuis]

Fallible or infallible refers to people. Errant or inerrant refers to a text. So generally best to refer to the Bible as inerrant rather than infallible. The problem is the people who think they have the Bible all figured out. What they do have figured out is their own fallible interpretations of an inerrant text. So I might ask them if they are infallible, and if their interpretation is protected by infallibility. Question their ability to interpret more than questioning the text.

Okay, thank you for the feedback on this. I don't believe I have the Bible all figured out. I do think that when someone calls the Bible inerrant, then the element of human error when writing down, translating, remembering what actually happened, is still not taken into consideration. Thank you for your comments, though.

 

[HTacianas]

One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.

Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.

How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!

You run across people who take the bible too seriously. And what I mean by that is just what you've described. But anyone who has seriously studied the bible will tell you that it contains errors and emendations created over time. That in no way changes the message of the bible, only its wording. When faced with that, you'll see them engage in all sorts of verbal gymnastics to try to make the error or emendation go away. Take Matthew 12:40 as an example:

Mat 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Notice that Jesus was not in the earth for three days and three nights, but for three days. It's an old emendation. But notice also that it doesn't change the message or the meaning. So the bible is the infallible word of God entrusted to fallible men. The message is infallible, the wording is not.

 

[Tuur]

One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.

Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.

How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!

This assumes text transmission was like making a photocopy of a photocopy. There's more to it than that. For one, the Jewish scribes came up with something similar to checksums to insure accurate transcriptions. For another, there's comparison to other old texts of scripture. There's also the letters of believers who argued about variations. Some time back the secular media seized on a variant of the Book of Revelation that had a different number of the beast, because it was the oldest known manuscript. Except there were letters dating prior to that manuscript that noted the variant. One, IIRC, checked with the disciples of the apostle John. That's how far back the variant went: It was known in the lifetime of those who knew the Apostle John. And people noted it.

In the same way, if you have a bible with translator notes, you might find some mention that some manuscripts do not include the incident where the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus. I think it was St Augustine who noted it was left out of some manuscripts because of fear some would take it as license to commit adultery. That passage is still debated and people go around and around with it, but again note that we have where people went around and around about it all the way back to Augustine, and likely before.

Here's the thing: You can find some variants, but none of them changes doctrine. None of them change who God is and who Jesus is. No variant changes the plan of salvation.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Well, I certainly don't want to start arguments, I just talk with a lot of people, online and offline, and then these things come up. Then I want to start a dialogue, not an argument, with those people. Thanks for your feedback though.

I usually need to have the persons worldview explained to me before i can understand their bible quotes.

Something like this ...

I think the author of this quote is directly quoting god.
I think the meaning of the verse is the fllowing: " .... .... .... .... "

I dont think everyone reads the bible in the same way and i dont think the meaning is self evident either.

 

[bling]

The Bible is just one tool Christians have.
Alot can be taken literally, but there is some poetry, figurative language, analogies, hyperbolas, and diatribes.
The Holy Spirit which dwells within you knows what is says.

 

[eleos1954]

One thing I struggled with about Christianity is the statement that the Bible is “the infallible Word of God.” To me, the Holy Trinity is pure and perfect, yet any message passed on through human beings is bound to be flawed.

Any work done through people is bound to be contaminated by human errors. I only have to look at my own personal history to clearly see that everyone of us makes errors. So the idea that I should take the Bible word for word as the infallible Word of God doesn’t make sense to me.

How do you see this? And more in general, how do I talk to Christians who take the Bible word for word literally, and who see any idea that there may be little flaws in there as blasphemous? Any feedback appreciated. And the message of Christianity is still the best message out there. God bless!

Divine inspiration guarantees the truthfulness of God's Word but not the accuracy of our interpretation. The Bible is infallible in all it affirms to be true and therefore absolutely reliable. We, however, may be fallible in our interpretation of the Bible.

Everyone needs to study for themselves ... God's truth is revealed as one studies.

The Bible does have literal truths in it ... but also spiritual truths shown through symbolism and symbolism is quite prevalent in His Word as well. His Word can not be taken in totality literally ... nor symbolic totally ... it is the blend of the two .... but the precepts will be the same.

One needs to study carefully and diligently and give it some time and things will come to light. Here a little ... there a little.

Isaiah 28:10

King James Bible
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

We can trust it ... if something don't "make sense" ... then keep studying and understanding the precepts taught throughout.

 

[Thijs Hottenhuis]

Divine inspiration guarantees the truthfulness of God's Word but not the accuracy of our interpretation. The Bible is infallible in all it affirms to be true and therefore absolutely reliable. We, however, may be fallible in our interpretation of the Bible.

Everyone needs to study for themselves ... God's truth is revealed as one studies.

The Bible does have literal truths in it ... but also spiritual truths shown through symbolism and symbolism is quite prevalent in His Word as well. His Word can not be taken in totality literally ... nor symbolic totally ... it is the blend of the two .... but the precepts will be the same.

One needs to study carefully and diligently and give it some time and things will come to light. Here a little ... there a little.

Isaiah 28:10

King James Bible
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

We can trust it ... if something don't "make sense" ... then keep studying and understanding the precepts taught throughout.

Well, I think you don’t address the element of human error that I believe has crept in when you call the Bible infallible. I believe God is perfect, but that with the Bible, minor mistakes have crept in. This relates to writing what actually happened years after the events took place, the changes caused by translations of the Bible, and the omitting of parts of the Bible in making new versions. I believe all these things have happened. Thank you for your comments, though.

 

[Laodicean60]

Divine inspiration guarantees the truthfulness of God's Word but not the accuracy of our interpretation.

Yes and are we interpreting the ancient language of Genesis properly? Would the ancients be able to interpret our language properly? So many arguments on forums because of the OT.

 

[Laodicean60]

and the omitting of parts of the Bible

And what fallible men decided what books needed to be in the Bible?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, I think you don’t address the element of human error that I believe has crept in when you call the Bible infallible. I believe God is perfect, but that with the Bible, minor mistakes have crept in. This relates to writing what actually happened years after the events took place, the changes caused by translations of the Bible, and the omitting of parts of the Bible in making new versions. I believe all these things have happened. Thank you for your comments, though. View attachment 340342

Those things have happened. A monk copying a manuscript by hand is not infallible. Little mistakes happen in copying. A translator is not infallible. Big mistakes happen. The only inerrant Bible texts are the originals, and maybe some of them are sitting in a monastery somewhere but pretty much all of the originals are dust or were deliberately destroyed in the persecutions of the first centuries when the Roman Empire came down hard on Christians. So we have hand copied copies mostly of copies of copies. This is where textual criticism comes in and has been invaluable to figuring out what the probable original texts were. The originals are inerrant and we are pretty sure now, through careful textual criticism, what those originals said. But translators? Don't get me started on them. We could read the Bible in the original languages, but then we are about as bad as some of the worst translators, because we rely on ourselves, poorly trained, to translate it all. We don't give up though. We use different translations. I have used NAB, JB, DR, RSV, NIV, and now ESV, They all have flaws and strengths.

 

[eleos1954]

Yes and are we interpreting the ancient language of Genesis properly? Would the ancients be able to interpret our language properly? So many arguments on forums because of the OT.

The Hebrew and Greek languages have more depth than the english language ... that's why it is best to use a Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Often the Lexicons are very helpful, at least I find that to be the case.

Jesus taught from the OT ... He is the same God throughout and is never changing. The two must harmonize ... and they do ... when it appears they do not then we need to keep studying ... as we are missing something.

Some say ... the OT are things concealed and the NT is the OT revealed ... and I find that to be the case.

Luke 24
King James Bible
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

We are very fortunate we live in a time where in depth researching is pretty easy .... there's a lot out there. ;o). I think the ancients would be blown away with the technology we have today. It's no accident that the Lord has allowed us create tools to better understand His Word and we should use all these tools available to us.

We study on. ;o)

 

[Laodicean60]

The Hebrew and Greek languages have more depth than the english language .

I understand that but the Genesis account predated Moses by how many years?

 

[eleos1954]

I understand that but the Genesis account predated Moses by how many years?

Creation certainly did predate Moses .... Moses codified it (wrote it down later). Before anything was written down it was passed along verbally ... Why should it matter when Moses wrote it?

 

[Laodicean60]

Creation certainly did predate Moses .... Moses codified it (wrote it down later). Before anything was written down it was passed along verbally ... Why should it matter when Moses wrote it?

Because what happens to verbal stories over time? I feel the creation account happened centuries before Adam and primitive man's stories could be misinterpreted. We argue over the Genesis account of not knowing the language of the ancients.