Is the Bible Infallible or totally subject to man's interpretation.

[KleinerApfel]

According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), out of 103 clergy polled in Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers); 97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80% acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people.

Since when did the sheer number of people believing or not believing something make any difference to it's being true?
If that was so, all of us here could be wrong, since only around a third of the population of earth agree that Jesus Christ is Lord. The rest have all kinds of alternatives.

Blessings, Susana

 

[Bushido216]

The point was to show that the TE position isn't held by only crackpots and loons.

 

[KleinerApfel]

!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Your point would be valid if the survey had been of random people in the mall.


It takes years of study, hard work and sacrifice to become a priest or minister in most churches. People who go into the ministry through that path have devoted their lives to study of the bible and Jesus - and following in His footsteps. They obvioulsy are religious people, who have an in depth knowledge of their own religion.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Religiosity is different from faith.

 

[Underdog77]

Underdog, let me put it this way.

Lets say a group of people were stranded on an island with no bible, and survived there for generations.

Or lets say that every single copy of scripture in the world was destroyed.

Or a missionary on journeys into the deep jungle to preach to the natives, but loses his bible on the way.

Would the word of God not exist for people in these situations. Is all hope gone for them. Can they never get to know Jesus spiritually just because they don't have it on paper.

No, a relationship with Jesus is possible without the Bible. But I fail to see your point. What does it have to do with the infallibility of the Bible?

Remember, for the first christians, it wasn't on paper in many cases. Or if it was, it was a single copy residing with the bishop of the church. And different churches had different gospels - ones that were rejected from the canon when the new testament was put together over 400 years after Jesus's ministry.
This is an example fo how the first scriptures looked. No pristine white flawless paper reproducing thousands of identical copies in a laser printer. Bumpy, uneven in texture and color, with traces of sticky resin. And the writing, no punctuation even. A single copy of a single book would take weeks to make. Painstaking work, imagine the writers cramp. Then it may be shipped from Alexandria to Antioch or Rome to be reproduced again. It took a few generations for people to trust the written word back when they had the spoken word of eyewitness (or people who actually were in personal contact with eyewitnesses to Jesus's ministry). Literacy in the Roman Empire is beleived to have been less then 15% according to Erhman. They had oral traditons, that's what they trusted back then.

This may all be true but one also has to remember that many of these early Christians and writers were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. This may be one of the deciding factors when determining the infallibility of the Bible. I believe that that the Holy Spirit guided them in their writings and made sure no mistakes were made.

There was some research done and what they did was compare the Bible as we have it now to the original early church manuscripts. These manuscripts were basically copies of copies of the originals. What they found was, other than a few misspellings and accidental marks, our Bible today was somewhere between 98%-100% (I can't remeber the number off the top of my head) accurate with the originals.

That's not bad considering how many translations and reprintings occured over the past 2000 or so years.

Also, this means that criticism can only be directed at the original writings. And as I have already said, the Bible claims to be infallible and I believe God saw to it that it was written exactly as He wanted. Just my faith in the Bible.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

The Bible does not claim to be infallible. That is a faith position which is, ironically, not found in the Bible, alongside its stablemate sola scriptura.

All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit - does that mean my scribblings here are infallible? Or yours?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Religiosity is different from faith.

Are you really reduced to questioning the faith of people because they don't believe as you do?

 

[Underdog77]

The Bible does not claim to be infallible. That is a faith position which is, ironically, not found in the Bible, alongside its stablemate sola scriptura.

Actually it does. Ever read 2 Timothy 3:16? There are others like it as well.

All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit - does that mean my scribblings here are infallible? Or yours?

No. There were more qualifications for a book to be canonical than that but the fact that the Holy Spirit resided in them can lead some to believe that they could have been guided by the Spirit in making perfect scripture.

The Bible doesn't say it didn't happen so its a possibility. Also when you consider the many miracles they were performing you have to believe that there was a lot of power given to them to use.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Actually it does. Ever read 2 Timothy 3:16? There are others like it as well.

No. There were more qualifications for a book to be canonical than that but the fact that the Holy Spirit resided in them can lead some to believe that they could have been guided by the Spirit in making perfect scripture.

The Bible doesn't say it didn't happen so its a possibility. Also when you consider the many miracles they were performing you have to believe that there was a lot of power given to them to use.

Some considerations on 2 Timothy 3:16:

1. At the time that it was written, Scriptures meant something else. To the author of the passage and to those who received the letter, it would have refered to the Septuagint. Since 2 Timothy was still being written when that verse was written, I don't think it is reasonable to have it refer to itself. Furthermore, it is likely that the author had no knowledge of large parts of the New Testament, including some or all of the Gospels and many of the letters. These all make it seem improbable to me that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Bible as we know it.

2. The passage says that it is useful (or profitable depending on translation). This doesn't seem to be as strong of claim as many who quote the verse try to make it out to be.

 

[Bonhoffer]

The words of the Bible itself have to be the inerrant word of God because if just one part of the Bible is wrong, then how can we trust the Bible when it says that Jesus will return and that by beleiving in his name we can enter the kingdom of God.

Its either all completly true, or its all false. However there can still be translation and copying errors.

 

[Bonhoffer]

Of course Mans intereptation can be wrong.

 

[Bonhoffer]

If lets say the story of Samson was slightly wrong and instead of killing 1,000 with a donkeys jaw he killed 900 with a sheeps rib cage.

Well if the Bible was wrong there, then surely couldnt you argue that Jesus might have said "Blessed are the RICH, for they shall inherit the kingdom of God"

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Underdog - "Have you ever read ..."

Don't be a patronising git. Of course I've read the Bible.

I know what that verse says. I know what it doesn't say - it doesn't say what you want it to say.

 

[artybloke]

The words of the Bible itself have to be the inerrant word of God because if just one part of the Bible is wrong, then how can we trust the Bible when it says that Jesus will return and that by beleiving in his name we can enter the kingdom of God.

Its either all completly true, or its all false. However there can still be translation and copying errors.

Define "wrong".

What I'm guessing you mean is "unfactual." But why is something that is unfactual neccessarily "wrong"?

Take the phrase "I wandered lonely as a cloud." Does that mean that he floated about as a collection of water droplets, several miles over the earth's surface? Of course not: but that would be the literal interpretation of Wordsworth's line.

Instead, of course, he's using poetic imagery to describe his feeling of isolation. What he says is "unfactual;" but is it wrong? Millions who've read the poem "Daffodils" would beg to disagree.

At the heart of creationism is the rationalist assumption that for something to be "true" it has to be "factual." Heck, August Comte founded a whole religion on this assumption, and it seems to me that fundamentalist literalists are following in his esteemed footprints, not the footprints of mainstream Christianity.

The first chapter of Genesis is a poem, not a work of science; it even has a refrain and a system of numerological symbolism wrapped up in it. The second chapter and subsequent has the form of a fable; even the names have a symbolic significance. Genesis itself is pointed to be sung in Hebrew, and still is in synagogues throughout the world. It has all the signs of a work of art.

Other books in the Bible which are works of art include Jonah, Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, Tobit, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations and many more. Even the prophets and histories are written largely in poetic form. They all contain deep truths and wisdom; but they are not factual accounts; they don't stop being true because they depart from the facts, anymore than Hamlet becomes untrue if the Prince of Denmark never existed.

Where the facts matter, then the Bible is factual. Where the facts don't matter (I mean, whose salvation is affected by the non-existence of Samson?) the writers felt perfectly free to use their God-given imaginations as they saw fit and were inspired to do so.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Are you really reduced to questioning the faith of people because they don't believe as you do?

No, I would not presume to question their faith, but there are people who study holy writings in painstaking detail for all kinds of reasons, faith not necessarily being one of them.

Some of them are honest about this, others less so. Some may be seeking, some may be unsure, after all, as human beings we all have moments of mixed motives, doubts and fears.

There have been church leaders who have stated that they became born again only some time into their ministry, even though they had indeed read and studied the Bible very thoroughly up to then.

The point is, religion is not faith. You can have both, or only one, or neither, but they are not identical.

God bless, Susana

 

[Underdog77]

Underdog - "Have you ever read ..."

Don't be a patronising git. Of course I've read the Bible.

I know what that verse says. I know what it doesn't say - it doesn't say what you want it to say.

A claim backed up by nothing. The thing about discussions and debate is that you need to back up your words with something. Explain why you believe so and give scripture or something.

We won't (or at least I won't) take just your word for it. You need to give a little more substance in order for me to respect the post.

 

[Underdog77]

Some considerations on 2 Timothy 3:16:

1. At the time that it was written, Scriptures meant something else. To the author of the passage and to those who received the letter, it would have refered to the Septuagint. Since 2 Timothy was still being written when that verse was written, I don't think it is reasonable to have it refer to itself. Furthermore, it is likely that the author had no knowledge of large parts of the New Testament, including some or all of the Gospels and many of the letters. These all make it seem improbable to me that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Bible as we know it.

Some interesting stuff but I have a couple of comments.

1) Just to get things straight and make sure we are all speaking about the same thing, Scripture as used in 2 Tim. 3:16 means the Holy Scripture. Now you argue that he (Paul) was refering to the Septuagint but I believe that the same holds true for all Scripture. I believe that all of the Holy Scriptures are "God breathed".

but

2) Even if Paul was refering to the Septuagint, we must remember the 2 Timothy was accepted as Bible canon. It is known to be part of the Holy Scriptures so it can be used to as an authority.

I believe it all comes down to what you believe is Holy Scripture. If you believe that 2 Timothy is Holy Scripture, then we know that the Bible claims to be infallible. If you don't, then you cannot use any of it as Scripture.

3) Read 2 Peter 3:25-26. To me this means that Peter is saying that the writings of Paul meet the requirements of being canonical. He says that he considers Paul's writings as high as the OT. If this is true then we can certainly use the 2 Tim. passage as saying the Bible is infallible.

2. The passage says that it is useful (or profitable depending on translation). This doesn't seem to be as strong of claim as many who quote the verse try to make it out to be.

True, it does say it is profitable/useful. But that is the second part of the sentence. The first part is what we are considering. It says "ALL Scripture is inspired by God AND is profitable..."

ALL- means all, every one, whole

inspired- this means God breathed, almost literally saying it is right from the mouth of God Himself

AND- means in addition to, as well as

So we read the first words here and it says that (in light of the now known definitions) The whole entire Scripture came from God's own mouth and is also good for....

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

You have two questions here. One asks if the Bible is infalliable, and the second asks whether man has to interpret it. I'd say yes to both. However, OEC doesn't really make sense. Either one takes the story as a literal history, or as a historical narrative. It is hard to be in between, or even on the side of Theistic Evolution, without seeing the Bible as infalliable, but it still is possible.

 

[Underdog77]

Its either all completly true, or its all false. However there can still be translation and copying errors.

Comparative research has shown that the Bible as we have it today is 99.something accurate with the original manuscripts. These original are copies of copies of the actual writings. So that's bad considering how many different times it has been translated and copied.

P.S. I love the Burke quote.