Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)

[Truth_Faith13]

Ok I am sure you have had a thread like this in the past, but I cant find one recently so I thought I would give it a go... Its quite simply...

Do you think the bible is word perfect?

I have noticed some people take the all or nothing approach. If the bible is perfect they believe it - if the bible has some *mistakes*, they say the whole thing is wrong.

What do you think?

 

[kmkemp]

It's not that, if there are mistakes, that the whole thing is wrong. It's that there is no way to know which parts are wrong. For example, if there are mistakes, how do we know Christ died for our sins? How do we know which parts are true and which aren't? Either it is infallible or there is no basis for Christian faith, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, I believe it is. Most would think that my acceptance is based on faith, which is true to an extent, I suppose. I read it and I believe that the words couldn't have come from man. One of the top reasons what Christians use to justify this belief is the fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ok I am sure you have had a thread like this in the past, but I cant find one recently so I thought I would give it a go... Its quite simply...

Do you think the bible is word perfect?

I have noticed some people take the all or nothing approach. If the bible is perfect they believe it - if the bible has some *mistakes*, they say the whole thing is wrong.

What do you think?

The Bible is absolutely not word perfect in any sense of the term. The condition of the manuscripts is evidence enough for this. We don't even know what all the words are: we have thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament alone, and no two of them are exactly the same, so we know right off the bat that it's not perfect, and all the evidence indicates that it never was. The bible has been and always will be in the care of human beings, it it bears our fingerprints.

The all or nothing approach is destrutive for Christians because eventually even the least inquisative Christian will realize that the Bible is full of not only textual errors but competing and mutually exclusive theological messages.

The best way to view the Scripture, in my opinion is an incarnational approach: God and humanity are both equally involved, and God's purpose in Scripture is redemption, as is His purpose in all things.

 

[FatMan]

Anything translated cannot be word perfect. Simply put.

It also cannot be Microsoft Word, either.:sorry1:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anything translated cannot be word perfect. Simply put.

It also cannot be Microsoft Word, either.:sorry1:

If only the disciples had a Mac.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

It's not that, if there are mistakes, that the whole thing is wrong. It's that there is no way to know which parts are wrong. For example, if there are mistakes, how do we know Christ died for our sins? How do we know which parts are true and which aren't? Either it is infallible or there is no basis for Christian faith, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, I believe it is. Most would think that my acceptance is based on faith, which is true to an extent, I suppose. I read it and I believe that the words couldn't have come from man. One of the top reasons what Christians use to justify this belief is the fulfillment of prophecy.

So how do you explain the gospels that have not been included - because man decided not to include them. The bible was inspired by God it wasnt written by God. How do you explain the different accounts from different people which have differences in them. Just like witnesses?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So how do you explain the gospels that have not been included - because man decided not to include them. The bible was inspired by God it wasnt written by God. How do you explain the different accounts from different people which have differences in them. Just like witnesses?

The Gospel of Thomas is particularly problematic here, but we can also bring up the fact that different Christian groups have different canons. Some ancient Churches include 1 Clement and the Didache as canonical, and the Catholics and Protestants are divided over the Apocrypha.

 

[Special Revelation]

Ok I am sure you have had a thread like this in the past, but I cant find one recently so I thought I would give it a go... Its quite simply...

Do you think the bible is word perfect?

I have noticed some people take the all or nothing approach. If the bible is perfect they believe it - if the bible has some *mistakes*, they say the whole thing is wrong.

What do you think?

All Bible that we have are copies of different manuscripts. Since mankind is not perfect, all translations have human error. Look at the preface in your Bibles and they all claim to be subject to error. The originals are completely perfect!

However, our Bibles in our possessions are completely trustworthy in regards to everything pertaining to faith, life and godliness. We can place our entire trust and faith in the copies of the Bibles that we have. Some trustworthy English translations include the ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, KJV.

I believe the Bible is a closed book for the non-elect. John 17:17 states that a believer is sanctified by truth (Bible). A conversion and on-going process of sanctification (being make like Christ) is completely dependent on the person and work of God the Holy Spirit. Within sanctification, God the Holy Spirit illuminates the Word of God to the believer, and applies the transforming truths revealed in the Bible to changed the redeemed sinner. Without the Holy Spirit's illuminating work, a non-believer is unable to understand the Word of God that will change him. God reveals truth to His elect children and conceals truth to others. Look for this theme in your Bible reading; it's everywhere.

 

[Katzpur]

It's not that, if there are mistakes, that the whole thing is wrong. It's that there is no way to know which parts are wrong. For example, if there are mistakes, how do we know Christ died for our sins? How do we know which parts are true and which aren't? Either it is infallible or there is no basis for Christian faith, as far as I'm concerned.

Still, I believe it is. Most would think that my acceptance is based on faith, which is true to an extent, I suppose. I read it and I believe that the words couldn't have come from man. One of the top reasons what Christians use to justify this belief is the fulfillment of prophecy.

Which translation is infallible then? And is your Bible complete? What about the Apocrapha?

 

[Quagmire]

The best answer I know of to the supposed infallability of the Bible is to point out the inconsistantcies and contradictions.

The best example I can think of concerns an event during the reign of King David which is documented twice in the Bible, first in Samuel and later in Chronicles, in which David brought a curse upon Israel by taking a census;

In 2 Samuel 24:1 it says "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Isreal, and he incited David against them and said to him, 'Go, number Isreal and Judah'".

But in 1 Chronicles 21:1, a later retelling of the same incident we read, "And then Satan stood up against Isreal and provoked David to number Isreal"

So in other words, according to this, either the Bible is fallable, or God and Satan are the same person.

Unless someone has a viable third explanation...

 

[kmkemp]

The apparent contradiction can be explained thus:

The noun of 2 Samuel 24:1 is the "anger of the Lord", not the "Lord". If we can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God, then the third explanation is that God used (or allowed) Satan to incite David.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The best answer I know of to the supposed infallability of the Bible is to point out the inconsistantcies and contradictions.

The best example I can think of concerns an event during the reign of King David which is documented twice in the Bible, first in Samuel and later in Chronicles, in which David brought a curse upon Israel by taking a census;

In 2 Samuel 24:1 it says "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Isreal, and incited David against them and said to him, 'Go, number Isreal and Judah'".

But in 1 Chronicles 21:1, a later retelling of the same incident we read, "And then Satan stood up against Isreal and provoked David to number Isreal"

So in other words, according to this, either the Bible is fallable, or God and Satan are the same person.

Unless someone has a viable third explanation...

Yes, this is an excellent example. The only reason why we would try to reconcile the two is if we already assumed that Scripture could not contradict itself.

 

[kmkemp]

Which translation is infallible then? And is your Bible complete? What about the Apocrapha?

A translation is a translation. No one claims perfect translations. The books that were left out were left out because they were contradictory and thus, not God-breathed. They were not of apostolic origin. I am aware that everyone here probably knows the criteria that the Council used, so please clarify what you are talking about.

 

[FatMan]

The apparent contradiction can be explained thus:

The noun of 2 Samuel 24:1 is the "anger of the Lord", not the "Lord". If we can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God, then the third explanation is that God used (or allowed) Satan to incite David.

Huh?

The fact that even referenced above, some translations aren't even universally agreed upon should automatically prevent the Bible from being "word perfect".

Does this really need debate?

 

[kmkemp]

Yes, this is an excellent example. The only reason why we would try to reconcile the two is if we already assumed that Scripture could not contradict itself.

If they contradict themselves, how do you know that the whole Bible wasn't written as a hoax? Even if only part of it was inserted by man (apart from God's will), how do you know that the important pieces like your salvation were not those very pieces? It seems counterproductive to believe one part and not others. What criteria are you using to decide which pieces to trust?

 

[Quagmire]

The apparent contradiction can be explained thus:

The noun of 2 Samuel 24:1 is the "anger of the Lord", not the "Lord". If we can agree that Satan can do nothing apart from the will of God, then the third explanation is that God used (or allowed) Satan to incite David.

That doesn't quite work. It doesn't say "the anger of the Lord" incited David, it says He (the Lord) actually did;

Samuel 24:1 ...the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He incited David against them..."

Chronicles 21:1 "Then Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David..."

It's not identifying Satan with "the anger of the Lord", it's identifying Satan with the Lord Himself.

 

[Special Revelation]

Yes, this is an excellent example. The only reason why we would try to reconcile the two is if we already assumed that Scripture could not contradict itself.

To say that God contradicts Himself in the Bible is to imply God is evil. God is the only perfect being, who has no darkness at all. He cannot be tempted by evil, nor is He capable to do evil. It is impossible for God to lie. The author of the Bible (God) is infinite with wisdom that no human being can completely understand. Therefore, the Bible is infinite too. Since we are finite fallen human beings, we are not capable to understand all of the Bible. The Apostle Paul states that he knows in part. If someone believes the Bible to be Holy... we should always approach it with humility and state things to be apparent contradictions. A high view of Scripture is a mark of a converted Christian. A low view of Scripture is not a good thing; it may even be evidences that somone is not truly in the faith. God the Holy Spirit illuminates the essential truth to His elect that the Bible is the Word of God. The carnal man will always undermine and attack the sufficiency of Scripture, because it is in His nature to rebel against God and His ways.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

A translation is a translation. No one claims perfect translations. The books that were left out were left out because they were contradictory and thus, not God-breathed. They were not of apostolic origin. I am aware that everyone here probably knows the criteria that the Council used, so please clarify what you are talking about.

I dont know the criteria! I just know that gospels that were written were left out! So you agree that the bible was put together by man then - which would contradict your belief that it was written by Go as you stated before and therefore cannot be infaliable.

You seem to rely 100% on the bible. As you said earlier if the bible is fiction, then there is no basis for christiantiy - what would you have done in the years with Jesus or after Jesus? when the bible didnt exist. It was written a couple of hundred years AFTER Jesus Christ.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If they contradict themselves, how do you know that the whole Bible wasn't written as a hoax? Even if only part of it was inserted by man (apart from God's will), how do you know that the important pieces like your salvation were not those very pieces? It seems counterproductive to believe one part and not others. What criteria are you using to decide which pieces to trust?

 

[FatMan]

To say that God contradicts Himself in the Bible is to imply God is evil.

Or it implies that translators are evil. If God was all powerful, he'd have zapped the Word down in 2,467 languages to avoid this controversy. Or he'd have given people better reasoning skills.

Judging on the way these debates go, I think the former option would be easier to pull off.