Infallibility of the Bible?

[SayWhat???]

I'll say it again Every book that God intended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible.

Now there's an interesting claim. How do you back that one up? As far as I know, it never says that in the Bible. And I think the last verse of the book of John is more than enough to show that the Bible is quite incomplete.

SW

 

[newyorksaint]

I believe the Bible to be God-breathed, and therefore, infallible.

I believe the original message of the Bible to be infalliable, but our mortal words are not perfect, and therefore, falliable. Especcially when you get people deciding what goes into scripture, and what doesn't. Hence, the need for the Restoration. God didn't keep the Bible perfect, but set things in motion to restore the changes that the Bible did recieve. God never said that He would keep the wording of the Bible perfect.

 

[newyorksaint]

And you need to research how JS came to write the BOM, entirely in King James English, and how many of its stories are based on a contemporary novel of JS's time.

There is no proof of the novel influencing the Book of Mormon. Just coincednce. As for the KJ English, that was considered a respectful tone when talking with God, and when using scripture; naturally it flows that when Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, he would have put it into a tone that was considered respectful, and one that implied Scripture. Just because the Book of Mormon is in KJ English does not negate it.

 

[A New Dawn]

I believe the original message of the Bible to be infalliable, but our mortal words are not perfect, and therefore, falliable. Especcially when you get people deciding what goes into scripture, and what doesn't. Hence, the need for the Restoration. God didn't keep the Bible perfect, but set things in motion to restore the changes that the Bible did recieve. God never said that He would keep the wording of the Bible perfect.

I believe that God is omnipotent. That means that He can make absolutely sure that what He wants to be done is done. Christ's action on the cross and the subsequent spread of the gospel would have been pointless had those things passed into obscurity within a generation or two. God promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, He promised that He would be with us till the end of the age, and His promises never fail. A god who is omnipotent can, and does, take measures to ensure that His word is not diminished.

 

[newyorksaint]

I believe that God is omnipotent. That means that He can make absolutely sure that what He wants to be done is done. Christ's action on the cross and the subsequent spread of the gospel would have been pointless had those things passed into obscurity within a generation or two. God promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, He promised that He would be with us till the end of the age, and His promises never fail. A god who is omnipotent can, and does, take measures to ensure that His word is not diminished.

I agree. Hence why He set up the events leading to the Restoration.

 

[RufustheRed]

Which version is the infallible one?

The original one.

Sven

 

[RufustheRed]

Let me put it this way:

The Bible is a record, written by man, of a small portion of the Word of God, and the dealings of God with man in the Old World from the creation of the world until the ministry of the Apostles (with certain periods ommitted, such as from Joseph's time until Moses' time, from Malachi's time until Christ's time etc.).

So is this a yes or no? Is the Bible the Word of God or is it not?

Sven

 

[buddy mack]

Let's look at this a different way. I have taught English to Brazilians for many years. As such, I have a pretty nice collection of Grammar books. Two of my favorites are "The Grammar Book," written by Marianne Celce-Murcia and Diane Larsen-Freeman (A very nice lady, by the way), and "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy. I see a lot of similarities between the two. They talk about the same principles, teach many of the same rules (using almost the same language) etc. So, in your opinion, who plagiarized who? Since you state that similarities are the same as plagiarism, you must believe there is plagiarism there. Of course this could be applied to many different types of text-books, such as science, math, history etc. Are they all plagiarized, then?

Despite what EP says, the language in the BoM is very different from that in the Bible, speaking in linguistic terms. The sentence structure, writing style, vocabulary etc. are all very different, except where there are quotes from the Old Testament, in which case the source cited. Can you give me a clear example of an expection? A passage in the BoM that was quoted or paraphrased without any reference to a Biblical prophet?

ok so this aint plagiarizem, Kjb- wars and rumorurs of war, matthew 24;6
BOM- wars, and rumores of wars. 1 Nephi 12;2

there are lots more to come.

PS, if today here in 2005, there is to be another book of scriptures to be translated from reforme Egyptian, and lets say the new Jospeh Smith was African American and he lived in the ghetto would the writting be in HIp-HOP ebonics or still in the KJV?

 

[newyorksaint]

ok so this aint plagiarizem, Kjb- wars and rumorurs of war, matthew 24;6
BOM- wars, and rumores of wars. 1 Nephi 12;2

there are lots more to come.

PS, if today here in 2005, there is to be another book of scriptures to be translated from reforme Egyptian, and lets say the new Jospeh Smith was African American and he lived in the ghetto would the writting be in HIp-HOP ebonics or still in the KJV?

So the same verses that appear in the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are plagarized? How queer.

I would think, that since the two sets of scripture come from the same source (i.e.-God), they would have many of the same messages.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman




Which version is the infallible one?

The original one.

Sven

Which does not exist.

 

[elman]

So is this a yes or no? Is the Bible the Word of God or is it not?

Sven

Some of it is and some of it is not.

 

[elman]

There are just some things that are sooo completely unforgettable that they remain a part of your life forever. If you have ever had a "God experience" (as a friend of mine calls it), you will know that there is no way you can forget an instance of that experience for the rest of your life.

The day God came into my life, my brother was sharing a testimony that was directly connected to my life-changing experience, and I remember word-for-word what he said and exactly how God came down and revealed Himself to me. I remember, a few years later, working as a nurse and caring for a girl who I had come to love as a sister and being concerned about her life (which was slipping away), and God spoke to me regarding her. I remember word-for-word what He said and exactly how I responded to it. These experiences happened 20-30 years ago, and I remember them as if it were yesterday.

These testimonies are why I believe the Bible is God Breathed. If that can happen to me, it sure-as-shootin' happened to the apostles that walked with Christ and recorded their experiences for all to benefit from. There is no way that they could have forgotten. Not a chance.

I have had experiences similar to yours but that does not mean all the authors of the Old and New Testaments had those same experiences everytime they wrote something. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope although some of them may have had similar experiences to yours and mine. I also do not believe in the infallibility of the politicians who met so long ago and compromised on what should go into the Bible and what should not. I believe no man or group of men to be infallible. Could God have caused a perfect error free book to exist. Yes. Did He? No.

 

[buddy mack]

So the same verses that appear in the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament are plagarized? How queer.

I would think, that since the two sets of scripture come from the same source (i.e.-God), they would have many of the same messages.

No, i can not think of a single incident where the Old Testament quoted the New Testament.

Excemple of the book of Mormon quoting the KJV new testament,
2 Nephi 25;20 there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, whereby man can be saved.
New testament, there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, Acts 4;12

 

[gort]

This begs the question doesn't it. It also leads one to ask which Bible? Is this the Catholic Bible? Is it the Bible of Protestantism? Is it say the Ephiopic Bible? These three simple examples are all different. They each include or exclude different books. Do you see the problem?

Then this also begs the question, just what is different about the 3 bibles you cite here? What's different about them?

Is there something different between them about God?

The bible I read is centered on God, in who He is, and what He has done for sinful man.

So can you point out the problem?

thanx

<><

 

[Guyver]

I have had experiences similar to yours but that does not mean all the authors of the Old and New Testaments had those same experiences everytime they wrote something. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope although some of them may have had similar experiences to yours and mine. I also do not believe in the infallibility of the politicians who met so long ago and compromised on what should go into the Bible and what should not. I believe no man or group of men to be infallible. Could God have caused a perfect error free book to exist. Yes. Did He? No.

Then why did he not cause an error free book, not that I'm saying the bible we have now has errors in it.

 

[Orontes]

Guyver:

I'll say it again Every book that Godintended and inspired to be in the Bible is in the Bible.

This begs the question doesn't it. It also leads one to ask which Bible? Is this the Catholic Bible? Is it the Bible of Protestantism? Is it say the Ephiopic Bible? These three simple examples are all different. They each include or exclude different books. Do you see the problem?

Then this also begs the question, just what is different about the 3 bibles you cite here? What's different about them?

Is there something different between them about God?

The bible I read is centered on God, in who He is, and what He has done for sinful man.

So can you point out the problem?

thanx

<><

Hello,

Actually what I posted above does not beg the question. Begging the question is a logical term. It means to assume the conclusion in one of the premises. For example: Someone says: The Bible is true. Another then asks why they should believe this and the answer given is the Bible says so. This creates a circularity that is a logical fallacy.

Regarding your question: I thought I pointed out the issue. The position seems to be that the Bible is complete. All that is in the Bible is exactly as it should be according to Divine Providence. The three Bibles I pointed out are different. The Catholic Bible includes what is often referred to as the Apocrypha, so Sirach would be included as part of the Bible for example. Present Protestant Bibles do not include these books. The Ethiopic Bible includes the Book of 1 Enoch. The idea every book in the Bible is there exactly as God intended therefore becomes a problem since there are at least three different intentions. Do you see?

 

[gort]

Orontes quotes:

Regarding your question: I thought I pointed out the issue. The position seems to be that the Bible is complete. All that is in the Bible is exactly as it should be according to Divine Providence. The three Bibles I pointed out are different. The Catholic Bible includes what is often referred to as the Apocrypha, so Sirach would be included as part of the Bible for example. Present Protestant Bibles do not include these books. The Ethiopic Bible includes the Book of 1 Enoch. The idea every book in the Bible is there exactly as God intended therefore becomes a problem since there are at least three different intentions. Do you see?

No, I don't yet see. Just because these bibles all don't have the same books in them really does'nt matter. Unless they contradict each other.

Does the Apochrypa contradict the protestant bible? Or do they paralell?

Does the Ethiopian bible contradict the protestant bibe? Or do the extra books paralell?

Do all of these pertain to the creation of man, his fall, and Gods redemption through the atoning blood of Christ Jesus?

<><

 

[BishopGodsey]

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” and say that some passages are not correct, but "may contain historical traces."

I agree completely! That does not diminish one little bit the message that the Scriptures are meant to convey at all.

 

[AMMON]

I am amazed at the pure ignorance that so many Christians have as to origins of The Holy Bible that we know as use today. I suggest that most of the people on this board need to spend some serious time researching, via various sources, how we came to have the sacred book we call The Holy Bible.

Many will be surprised to know that The Holy Bible was not even officially complied until centuries after the death of Christ. Prior to the official compilation, there was no set version of a bible; rather, there were numerous sacred texts being used throughout the Christian world, many of which were eventually rejected in the final compilation of The Holy Bible. And many of the books now in The Holy Bible have been shown to be written by someone other than the credited authors. Look into it. You'll likely be amazed at what you find.

(See, e.g., Bard D. Ehrman, Ph.D., M.Div., The New Testament: A Brief Introduction, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament.)

 

[LittleNipper]

Hello,

Actually what I posted above does not beg the question. Begging the question is a logical term. It means to assume the conclusion in one of the premises. For example: Someone says: The Bible is true. Another then asks why they should believe this and the answer given is the Bible says so. This creates a circularity that is a logical fallacy.

Regarding your question: I thought I pointed out the issue. The position seems to be that the Bible is complete. All that is in the Bible is exactly as it should be according to Divine Providence. The three Bibles I pointed out are different. The Catholic Bible includes what is often referred to as the Apocrypha, so Sirach would be included as part of the Bible for example. Present Protestant Bibles do not include these books. The Ethiopic Bible includes the Book of 1 Enoch. The idea every book in the Bible is there exactly as God intended therefore becomes a problem since there are at least three different intentions. Do you see?

The scripture that Jesus read in the temple did not contain the Apocrypha. The only reason why the Apocrypha was placed in the Roman Catholic Bible, was because it provided credibility to some of the practices which began to creep into that church (such prayers for the dead, etc.). The fact that the Book of Mormon exists and is excepted as scripture only give substance to the 3rd & 4th verse of II Timothy.

For the time WILL COME when they WILL NOT endure sound doctrine, but after THEIR OWN LUSTS shall THEY HEAP to THEMSELVES teachers, having itching ears; and THEY shall turn away ears from the truth, and SHALL BE TURNED UNTO FABLES.


The Book of Mormon is but a fable containing a few stolen verses from the Bible to provide a false sense of credibility.