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

[Underdog77]

Of course Mans intereptation can be wrong.

True but there comes a point where you have to accept the most logical, Biblically concurrent, and accurate interpretation.

The problem I have with OEC is that it condicts what the Bible says. The 'literal' interpretation of Genesis is the most Biblically accurate and that is the purpose of this thread, it is to see if the Bible is infallible. If it is, then we already know what is says about creation and that is what I put my faith and trust in.

 

[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.

I just realized what you meant. I didn't mean to be patronizing at all . But I do know that there a great number of Christians who haven't read the Bible and I just wanted to make sure that you haven't missed that passage. Sorry Again.

 

[Underdog77]

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.

If you are an OEC or TE and believe that the Bible is infallible, then you must believe the creation account is metaphoric.

But the Creation account does not present itself metaphorically in any way. Therefore it is impossible to believe OEC/TE and believe the Bible to be infallible.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

If you are an OEC or TE and believe that the Bible is infallible, then you must believe the creation account is metaphoric.

But the Creation account does not present itself metaphorically in any way. Therefore it is impossible to believe OEC/TE and believe the Bible to be infallible.

As I said, it is hard to hold those beliefs at the same time, yet I know some who do with great proficiency. But I agree, there is nothing to suggest a metaphor or some other story.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If you are an OEC or TE and believe that the Bible is infallible, then you must believe the creation account is metaphoric.

But the Creation account does not present itself metaphorically in any way. Therefore it is impossible to believe OEC/TE and believe the Bible to be infallible.

are you sure about that? Genesis 1 is so close to the Babylonian creation story that the Jews were being told in Captivity. It counters the concept of God that they were getting, yet keeps the same framework of the story. It reads more like a Yawehistic Babylonian creation story than anything original. It presented the concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in contemporary storytelling. The truth of God remains, but the story is meant to increase understanding, not to be literal. I venture to guess that if Genesis were written today, it would read like a theistic evolutionists story, with God as creator.

The elements would be there. God created, man sinned, God still loves His creation and gives Himself for them. That is the only literal truth that I need.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

are you sure about that? Genesis 1 is so close to the Babylonian creation story that the Jews were being told in Captivity. It counters the concept of God that they were getting, yet keeps the same framework of the story. It reads more like a Yawehistic Babylonian creation story than anything original. It presented the concept of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in contemporary storytelling. The truth of God remains, but the story is meant to increase understanding, not to be literal. I venture to guess that if Genesis were written today, it would read like a theistic evolutionists story, with God as creator.

The elements would be there. God created, man sinned, God still loves His creation and gives Himself for them. That is the only literal truth that I need.

Notice that this was the first story, so it couldn't be like the Babylonians'. Also, it was written before captivity.

 

[Dracil]

Notice that this was the first story, so it couldn't be like the Babylonians'. Also, it was written before captivity.

Sources?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Sources?

Yes, the Bible.....

 

[Dracil]

Verses? And let's make sure we aren't ignoring the hermeneutics (I believe that's the word).

For some reason, I'm smelling a logical fallacy already.

 

[Atomagenesis]

To answer your second question please read this I'm sure it will help:

Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"

Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates tradition. This fact alone disproves sola scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves "Bible alone" theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they "realize the certainty of the teachings you have received." Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone." The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word "Bible" is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made...")

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter's use of the word "ignorant" means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God's Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can't discern between God's word (the commandment "don't eat") and a prophet's erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment "don't eat"). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

That is why we need the Catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to interpret it for us. I always like to think of it like well no other church has every pope since peter buried in their basement, including Peter and Paul!

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Genesis is a good place to start. According to this, Adam and Eve were the first humans. Myths were written at a later time

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

To answer your second question please read this I'm sure it will help:

Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"


That is why we need the Catholic church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to interpret it for us. I always like to think of it like well no other church has every pope since peter buried in their basement, including Peter and Paul!

This is a faulty delimma. Either we are Sola Scriptura or Catholic? I think not. The Bible is great, but it never claims to have everything God said in any part.

 

[Atomagenesis]

According to you it is faulty. I never said you are Sola Scripture or Catholic, I am just pointing out what the apostles said. I had just posted that scripture you should really read the verses to see they are legitimate You're right about not having everything he said in it, if one knew bout apostolic tradition in the Catholic church that statement would comply 100% with our teachings! so you're partly catholic already.

 

[Dracil]

Genesis is a good place to start. According to this, Adam and Eve were the first humans. Myths were written at a later time

Woohoo! My prediction was right when I said I smelled a logical fallacy coming up!

Wanna try again?

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Woohoo! My prediction was right when I said I smelled a logical fallacy coming up!

Let's try that again. Verses? Without ignoring the hermeneutics.

I did not ignore the hermeneutics. Please explain your accusation.

 

[Dracil]

The fallacy lies in begging the question.

Let's try that again. How do you know Genesis came before the Babylonian myths? You simply assume it to be so, and each time, you've simply re-stated your conclusion.

 

[Atomagenesis]

Did you read those verses yet!? THEY ARE IMPORTANT!

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

According to you it is faulty. I never said you are Sola Scripture or Catholic, I am just pointing out what the apostles said. I had just posted that scripture you should really read the verses to see they are legitimate You're right about not having everything he said in it, if one knew bout apostolic tradition in the Catholic church that statement would comply 100% with our teachings! so you're partly catholic already.

Probably so. I subscribe to no denomination, just the purest form of Christianity I can find. I use Apocrypha, early writings of the church, etc to search farther for truth.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

The fallacy lies in begging the question.

Let's try that again. How do you know Genesis came before the Babylonian myths? You simply assume it to be so, and each time, you've simply given me your conclusion.

Because my God says so!

 

[Atomagenesis]

That's really awesome man, well I can tell you the Catholic church is the purest form, cause that's where it all came from, read some St. ignatius of Antioch.