Can a Christian question the authority and infallability of the Bible?

[1stcenturylady]

Sigh.

The Isaiah 53 we have today is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, from 1008 AD. An older, complete scroll of Isaiah is from the Dead Sea caves and has variation from the later Masoretic text. BUT OUR BIBLES USE THE MASORETIC TEXT WHEN THEY TRANSLATE ISAIAH. Since it is later than the Dead Sea version by about 1200 years and has variations from the Dead Sea scrolls, how do you justify using it for your Bible codes? If even one letter is different between these texts it ruins the premise that skip interval is a valid method of exegesis.

I don't know which one they used, but that was the result.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Good night

 

[Steve Petersen]

I don't know which one they used, but that was the result.

All Hebrew bible codes use the Masoretic text because it is the authorized version for Judaism. The Masoretic text is also the basis for the OT translations used by nearly all Christian Bibles. That text is just over 1000 years old. There are older manuscripts of the OT, but they are not used.

 

[Fhaoipteh]

You are so bogged down in doctrine, like the Pharisees, who knew the Bible but did not know God.
Ask yourself, What did I do today to show God's love to my fellow human beings?

 

[Ron Gurley]

The "author" of the Bible is God the Holy Spirit. He superintended and inspired men to write manuscripts which in their original form were without error. There are many interpretive tools for the systematic theology in interpreting the Bible. God the Holy Spirit should be the interpreter of the Bible.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Non-use or misuse of the interpretive tools of the Bible do not make you a bad a "Christian". Study true salvation and sanctification.

 

[spockrates]

Because God is not trapped in the pages of a book? Nor is he bound by our interpretation of it.

Hi, @Steve Petersen. Hope you don't mind me being late to the conversation. I agree people's interpretations can be flawed, especially since certain key biblical passages are seem to me to be ambiguous.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

to say the bible which is the Word of God is fallible is to effectively say God is fallible.

not sure how a born again follower of Christ could do such a thing.

 

[Steve Petersen]

to say the bible which is the Word of God is fallible is to effectively say God is fallible.

not sure how a born again follower of Christ could do such a thing.

Which Bible are you referring to? I am not speaking of translations here, but canons, that is which collection of books of the Bible. Not all Christian denominations have had the same books in their Bibles.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Which Bible are you referring to? I am not speaking of translations here, but canons, that is which collection of books of the Bible. Not all Christian denominations have had the same books in their Bibles.

This would not include the apocryphal books

 

[hedrick]

to say the bible which is the Word of God is fallible is to effectively say God is fallible.

not sure how a born again follower of Christ could do such a thing.

Sorry, but people who reject inerrancy don't think God is fallible. In fact people who don't believe in inerrancy believe that Scripture contains the word of God in varying ways, but isn't directly The Word.

Certainly the Bible records cases where people (e.g. the prophets) say "thus says the Lord."

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Sorry, but people who reject inerrancy don't think God is fallible. In fact people who don't believe in inerrancy believe that Scripture contains the word of God in varying ways, but isn't directly The Word.

Certainly the Bible records cases where people (e.g. the prophets) say "thus says the Lord."

In other words, they don't believe all of scripture to be God's Word which brings it's authority into question. They then get to pick and choose what they want to follow.

 

[Steve Petersen]

This would not include the apocryphal books

I am not including the apocryphal books. I refer to other collections of NT books, not OT apocrypha.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I am not including the apocryphal books. I refer to other collections of NT books, not OT apocrypha.

No gnostic gospels either.

 

[Steve Petersen]

No gnostic gospels either.

Books that are/were part of the NT canon of present Christian denominations.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Books that are/were part of the NT canon of present Christian denominations.

Still of man's choosing to accept or reject. I think the Church made mistakes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hi, @Steve Petersen. Hope you don't mind me being late to the conversation. I agree people's interpretations can be flawed, especially since certain key biblical passages are seem to me to be ambiguous.

Quite ambiguous. While I strongly believe God loves and blesses the Bible literalists who believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures, and indeed they may be justified in that belief, I myself see that ambiguity as our Achilles heel when it comes to understanding.

I know of no devout Jew or Christian who does not just sort of ignore those passages in the Bible that we no longer wish to obey--I have cited a few in this thread and have yet to have anybody acknowledge them. All pick and choose those passages they wish to be authoritative and shrug off those that might put such passages into a different perspective.

And it isn't only the literalists who tend to do that I think.

How many times have Christians admonished their brethren that we are to be our brother's keeper? And that is based on Genesis 4.9: Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Looking at this through 21st century eyes, it is an impertinent response, as well as a lie, saying that he is not responsible for his brother.

But if we look at it through the eyes of the ancient ones, a 'keeper' is the tender of the flocks, the shepherd who directs where they go, what they eat, where they sleep or in other words is their overlord or master.

Is that how we think of people when we suggest it is our responsibility to be their 'keeper'? It wouldn't be such a noble virtue would it.

Cain in fact was most likely stating that he had no such authority over his brother and was expressing respect for his brother even as he lied about what he had done.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Is it reallly necessary to launch into a false history of the English church every time a discussion develops over differences between Catholics an Protestants? Realllly? It's becoming the "go to" reply every time that a Catholic is stumped, and it's off-topic in any case.

They seem to forget St. Augustine of Canterbury and the divisions leading up to the Synod of Whitby!

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

The "author" of the Bible is God the Holy Spirit. He superintended and inspired men to write manuscripts which in their original form were without error. There are many interpretive tools for the systematic theology in interpreting the Bible. God the Holy Spirit should be the interpreter of the Bible.

The authors of the Bible were human beings. They inspired to write, yes, but the authors were human and still prone to human error as well as human biases and presuppositions beholden to their contexts.

 

[W2L]

I question everything. However at the end of the day, i weigh my options and nothing in this world can replace the love of God and the promise of eternal life. These things give me joy. So i follow the Lord (Spirit) and His word (Scriptures) Amen. I feel joy just talking about it. Praise the Lord, my shepherd.