The Chain of Infallibility

[Ben Avraham]

If there is no chain of infallibility, why should I believe in the book of Ecclesiastes? In other words, how do you know that your quote from Ecclesiastes is correct, and from "god"?

Because the book of Ecclesiastes is proving a fact. That the claim of infallibility is an illusion as human beings are concerned. That of itself is an evidence that the book of Ecclesiastes is correct and we need nothing else to corroborate that fact.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am still waiting on answers to my original questions before I answer yours...

1. Which version of the Bible do you refer to? I can guarantee that some versions are NOT infallible, like the NWT.

**I think a clean modern version like the NAS or NKJV is wonderful. Any "issues" therein are simply reconciled using original language studies or historical context. I have no problem with that.

2. The original works, called the Autographs, have long been lost or destroyed. Many went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed much of Jerusalem. How do you know for a FACT that the version you read is infallible, when you don't have the originals to compare to? All we have are copies of copies, and those are subject to human error.

**You are conflating two ideas here. I don't know for a FACT that I'm reading exactly what the autographs said, but I can know for a FACT that Bible I currently read is infallible, because for decades every contradiction and issue another has raised with it, I've studied out.

3. We are thousands of years removed from the culture of the Bible. Their idioms are lost on us. How do you reconcile that ancient age of mysticism and supernatural superstition with our advanced knowledge of science and medicine? You can't look at the Bible through a modern lense.

**Because during "that ancient age of mysticism and supernatural superstition" a remarkable people, still with us today, were and are leaders in every area, and this remarkable Jewish people was steered by and had wisdom from God. It is therefore difficult to look at the Bible through OUR modern lens, but not impossible. Only in recent history have people doubted the authenticity and exemplary nature of the scriptures...!

 

[metis]

There is virtually no way that one can find evidence that any version of any scripture is "infallible", nor does it make any sense to believe or claim so because we as readers of the texts are not infallible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not going to argue with you on that, because you are reading from a Christian version of the Bible. I am reading from the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach. The author of ecclesiastes was speaking in a general manner as a proverb based on a fact of life. But you don't have to get stuck to him. Jesus gave evidence of himself as a sinner when he broke the Golden Rule 15 times only in that text of Mat. 23:13-33.

The Golden Rule states that we must not do unto others what we would not like they did unto ourselves. That's what Jesus did to the Pharisees when he cursed them with being hypocrites and brood of vipers. Do you think Jesus would have liked to be addressed as a hypocrite and brood of vipers? I don't think so. So, you have the evidence from Jesus himself that he broke the Golden Rule which covers the whole second part of the Decalogue. Serious transgressions right there, mind you!

And that was not the first and last time. Jesus also caused financial and physical damages to the money changers when he armed himself with a whip and vandalized their work which enjoyed the authorization of the High Priest. And their work was needed to make it easier for the Jews coming from abroad to change their foreign money by the kosher Temple shekel to pay for a lamb to remain kosher till the time to be sacrificed.

You quoted Ecclesiastes not as a general rule of life but as a binding rule of life, saying Y'shua broke this rule. You cannot have it both ways--although for a moment earlier, I was pleased that a non-Messianic brother was that firm on G_d's Word. Now you're retreating from "Ha Shem said" to "Ha Shem sort of indicated..." so don't do that!

The Golden Rule was utterly obeyed in Matthew 23. If you catch me shooting heroin, the Golden Rule says take the needle away and break it for me rather than give me heroin so I can be treated to feel good, the way I want to be treated, by getting high. Jesus reproved the Pharisees because they needed to hear it. Have you read in Acts where it says, "Many of the Pharisees were trusting in Jesus [after the resurrection]"? God is so smart that He knows what to say to people--what they need to hear and when they need to hear it! The rulers of our people smarted under a lot worse than "hypocrite" because he told them they were going to Gey-Hinnom! Let's not go there, you and I!

This is a beautiful thing--most of the Roman Catholic priests and nuns who come to Jesus for salvation do so reading the woes of Matthew 23! They know they are whitewashed tombs.

**Yes, it hurt business to turn the money changing tables over. However, Y'shua fulfilled prophecy in doing so--"zeal for God's house will consume Messiah." Read the passage again and see why Y'shua said He was doing what He did.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is virtually no way that one can find evidence that any version of any scripture is "infallible", nor does it make any sense to believe or claim so because we as readers of the texts are not infallible.

Are you sure? Are you certain that is "virtually no way" to test a hypothesis? For example, the Bible promises economic security to tithers. Many Christian tithers have hundreds of sample checkpoints from hundreds of tithes made and God coming to the rescue hundreds of times. The Bible says God says to test Him. I found that verse most compelling not long before I prayed to trust Christ as Savior!

 

[metis]

Are you sure? Are you certain that is "virtually no way" to test a hypothesis? For example, the Bible promises economic security to tithers. Many Christian tithers have hundreds of sample checkpoints from hundreds of tithes made and God coming to the rescue hundreds of times. The Bible says God says to test Him. I found that verse most compelling not long before I prayed to trust Christ as Savior!

It's called "common sense", supported by the fact that the oldest documents show both variation of scripture and some errors.

For example, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two gospels match, and no amount of mental gymnastics can make 1 into 2, or make the inside the outside, or make words magically agree when its obvious that they don't.

 

[buddhist]

Because the book of Ecclesiastes is proving a fact. That the claim of infallibility is an illusion as human beings are concerned. That of itself is an evidence that the book of Ecclesiastes is correct and we need nothing else to corroborate that fact.

I dispute the idea that there "has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned".

 

[viole]

1. The apostles spent each of their lifetimes "not ceasing to preach and teach Jesus Christ". You are making the case here for your argument and for the Bible.

2. The two testaments are actually, instead of what you wrote, remarkably consistent in their descriptions of God's character, love and justice. It is a canard, at best accepted in some (foolish) liberal universities, that the testament Gods are different. It is a canard as old as the higher criticism of two centuries ago.

3. If you are born again, why wouldn't you love His people and obey His commands (John 14)?

I was born again. And saved, allegedely. Do you think I still am?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Neo Deist]

1. Which version of the Bible do you refer to? I can guarantee that some versions are NOT infallible, like the NWT.

**I think a clean modern version like the NAS or NKJV is wonderful. Any "issues" therein are simply reconciled using original language studies or historical context. I have no problem with that.

Thank you for finally answering. Was it really that hard?

Any of the KJVs are far from infallible, considering they are based on the Church of England's 1611 KJV, and it was a highly biased translation. All 47 scholars that worked on it were commissioned under James I to make the Bible represent the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the Church of England, and the "Shakespearean" language was selected to make it sound formal during public reading. While a beautiful sounding translation, it relied heavily on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. There are several mistranslations in the KJV, especially the OT, because resources were scarce for those languages.

2. The original works, called the Autographs, have long been lost or destroyed. Many went up in flames when Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed much of Jerusalem. How do you know for a FACT that the version you read is infallible, when you don't have the originals to compare to? All we have are copies of copies, and those are subject to human error.

**You are conflating two ideas here. I don't know for a FACT that I'm reading exactly what the autographs said, but I can know for a FACT that Bible I currently read is infallible, because for decades every contradiction and issue another has raised with it, I've studied out.

I am afraid you can't guarantee that the Bible is infallible, because the Autographs don't exist. You do not have the source to compare to. You say that you have studied the Bible for decades and have come to the conclusion that it is infallible. Which version is infallible, according to you? Why then do so many denominations not share in your wisdom? Are you fluent with ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek? Have you taken graduate courses at seminary?

3. We are thousands of years removed from the culture of the Bible. Their idioms are lost on us. How do you reconcile that ancient age of mysticism and supernatural superstition with our advanced knowledge of science and medicine? You can't look at the Bible through a modern lense.

**Because during "that ancient age of mysticism and supernatural superstition" a remarkable people, still with us today, were and are leaders in every area, and this remarkable Jewish people was steered by and had wisdom from God. It is therefore difficult to look at the Bible through OUR modern lens, but not impossible. Only in recent history have people doubted the authenticity and exemplary nature of the scriptures...!

If the Jewish people are the source for your claim, then why do you believe in Satan as the devil when they don't?

 

[Neo Deist]

@BilliardsBall I want to make it clear that I am not trying to attack you, but rather call into question some of what you (and so many others) believe with regard toward the Bible being infallible. The Bible is not to be worshiped, lest you idolize that book. God and God alone is the object of worship. The Bible is merely a guide line, written thousands of years ago by people that did not have the scientific and medical knowledge that we have today. Its very contents are subject to interpretation, especially since we are so far removed from that culture, time period and for many of us, geographic location. Be flexible with your thoughts but keep your focus on God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's called "common sense", supported by the fact that the oldest documents show both variation of scripture and some errors.

For example, how many angels were at Jesus' tomb, where were he/they located, and what did he/they say? No two gospels match, and no amount of mental gymnastics can make 1 into 2, or make the inside the outside, or make words magically agree when its obvious that they don't.

I missed something. You say it's common sense to repudiate the Bible based on your observation, inductively made, that one account has two angels and the other, one, and that is your response to why you cannot use the same inductive logic to find out which parts of the Bible are true? Metis, you talk a lot about being open and nonjudgmental, do you find any truth in the Bible or is 100% self-contradictory?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I was born again. And saved, allegedely. Do you think I still am?

Ciao

- viole

I'm not sure. I was trying to be Socratic by asking why you're mean spirited and sarcastic to other born agains. This seems contrary to what Jesus said about born agains. Obviously you've experienced hurt (not "the church was judgmental" but some real and deep wounding somewhere).

I'm sorry. I honestly am. What can I do?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thank you for finally answering. Was it really that hard?

I answered you the first time, Socratically, via questions. I answered you now a second time. It wasn’t hard to answer you a second time, but reading your note above was hard for me. Do you know why?

Any of the KJVs are far from infallible, considering they are based on the Church of England's 1611 KJV, and it was a highly biased translation. All 47 scholars that worked on it were commissioned under James I to make the Bible represent the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the Church of England, and the "Shakespearean" language was selected to make it sound formal during public reading. While a beautiful sounding translation, it relied heavily on Jerome's Latin Vulgate. There are several mistranslations in the KJV, especially the OT, because resources were scarce for those languages.

That all sounds good, but I said the N, N, N, NKJV or the NAS, both of which have excellent source texts they draw from in the original language.

Please read what I write before accusing me of KJV-only narrowmindedness.

I am afraid you can't guarantee that the Bible is infallible, because the Autographs don't exist. You do not have the source to compare to. You say that you have studied the Bible for decades and have come to the conclusion that it is infallible. Which version is infallible, according to you? Why then do so many denominations not share in your wisdom? Are you fluent with ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek? Have you taken graduate courses at seminary?

Respectfully, if the copies match the autographs the possibility is there that the copies are infallible! We would need the autographs to prove the copies are different! Items like the Yemeni Torah scrolls and the Dead Sea Scrolls shed light on the veracity and excellence of the copies of the scriptures extant.

As to “why doesn’t everyone believe as I do?” I must insist that God gave free will to Christians, not only to unbelievers.

Yes, I studied ancient Greek and Hebrew in secular, not seminary, locations, and I skipped the Aramaic, if you’ll forgive my ignorance of a few passages in Daniel. J

If the Jewish people are the source for your claim, then why do you believe in Satan as the devil when they don't?

Are you disagreeing with me that the Ancient Jews were enlightened, your reason being because they did NOT believe in Satan as the devil?

I want to make it clear that I am not trying to attack you, but rather call into question some of what you (and so many others) believe with regard toward the Bible being infallible. The Bible is not to be worshiped, lest you idolize that book. God and God alone is the object of worship. The Bible is merely a guide line, written thousands of years ago by people that did not have the scientific and medical knowledge that we have today. Its very contents are subject to interpretation, especially since we are so far removed from that culture, time period and for many of us, geographic location. Be flexible with your thoughts but keep your focus on God.

If I was in your class and said I loved you but didn’t read your syllabus or textbook, indeed, I couldn’t trust your syllabus or textbook, would I receive an A in your course? Is that how I’m to approach God?

I guess my real problem is why it upsets you so that I say the Bible is God’s Word, inerrant? Just today I witnessed to an atheist who smiled as he said, “Hey, if religion works for you, great.” It sounds like you want me to less fundamentalist about my faith. Of what benefit is that to you, should I write today, “Whew! I thought I was headed straight through my Bible to Heaven, but now I know the truth, God is great, but you cannot find Him in the Bible! That’s a relief! Now, what to do next to seek God…”

 

[metis]

I missed something. You say it's common sense to repudiate the Bible based on your observation, inductively made, that one account has two angels and the other, one, and that is your response to why you cannot use the same inductive logic to find out which parts of the Bible are true? Metis, you talk a lot about being open and nonjudgmental, do you find any truth in the Bible or is 100% self-contradictory?

First of all, I didn't "repudiate the Bible", so that's a bold-faced lie. What I did was to try to put it into a different perspective from yours that actually most theologians take. Do they "repudiate the Bible" as well simply because they also frequently point out scriptural variations that clearly exist in black & white?

Secondly, I gave you evidence for my position (the situation at Jesus' tomb), but you offered not one shred of evidence back in return.

Thirdly, I would suggest that it's "open and nonjudgmental" to actually read and go with what is written and not have blind obedience to anything, the latter of which is what you are doing. I pointed out the variations, but you were so disingenuous as to come back and make insulting accusations without offering any evidence in return.

And finally, to have me supposedly not finding any "truth in the Bible" is both ignorant and insulting. If I didn't find truths in it, why would I have taught theology for so many years? Why would I go to shul and also church with my wife? Why would I post here at RF on religious matters?

Listen, you can treat the Bible as an idol, but I simply don't take that position. The Bible is not God and God is not the Bible, and as long as you confuse the two together, then you have slipped into idolatry.
Read any serious theologian and they will point out the fact that the Bible is of human construct and the question of "divine inspiration" is just that-- a question. There simply is no way to tell how much of the Bible is divinely inspired, if any, and there are numerous theological theories on this.

 

[metis]

Respectfully, if the copies match the autographs the possibility is there that the copies are infallible! We would need the autographs to prove the copies are different! Items like the Yemeni Torah scrolls and the Dead Sea Scrolls shed light on the veracity and excellence of the copies of the scriptures extant.

First of all, the books in the DSS that are found in the canon are copies, not originals. Secondly, after being found, the publication of the RSV had to be stopped to make some corrections in the texts because the rule-of-thumb used theologically is to go with the earliest texts. Fortunately, the corrections that had to be made were largely minor.

Since the DSS only include copies of the original texts used in the canon, their veracity simply cannot be verified.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First of all, I didn't "repudiate the Bible", so that's a bold-faced lie. What I did was to try to put it into a different perspective from yours that actually most theologians take. Do they "repudiate the Bible" as well simply because they also frequently point out scriptural variations that clearly exist in black & white?

I apologize for misstating my position. I’ll clarify. You repudiate the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God.

Secondly, I gave you evidence for my position (the situation at Jesus' tomb), but you offered not one shred of evidence back in return.

I didn’t realize you wanted a response to your rhetoric. Why has no one told you previously that angels appear and disappear and two or one could appear at various times (or alternatively, that one angel could have been the spokesperson of the two as recorded)? It only took me a few moments to formulate this response.

I guess I could also ask why you’ve never responded to dozens of examples I’ve given from prophecy, showing God as the greatest intellect in the universe—making it as if you think the greatest intellect who wrote the scripture through amanuenses is so stupid He mixed up the number of the angels at the tomb—and also that no Christians noticed this horrible contradiction for millennia until you enlightened us? But you’ve called me patronizing before… I think the “contradiction” you offered was a little patronizing, so I previously declined to respond. Do you blame me?

Thirdly, I would suggest that it's "open and nonjudgmental" to actually read and go with what is written and not have blind obedience to anything, the latter of which is what you are doing. I pointed out the variations, but you were so disingenuous as to come back and make insulting accusations without offering any evidence in return.

I don’t think you give enough credit to my conversion. I never blindly obeyed the NT as a Jew and it took a very long time, much study and contemplation, prayer and much soul searching before I converted. Since then, I’ve spent literally thousands of hours studying things including the “contradictions” for many years.

And finally, to have me supposedly not finding any "truth in the Bible" is both ignorant and insulting. If I didn't find truths in it, why would I have taught theology for so many years? Why would I go to shul and also church with my wife? Why would I post here at RF on religious matters?

You’re asking me an ineffable question here. I feel rather you must be experiencing tremendous inner turmoil to attend shul and church both while adhering neither fully to Judaism as ultimate truth nor Christianity as ultimate truth. I don’t mean to patronize you, this very tension led my father who’d divorced my mother and remarried to a Gentile to come to faith in Christ.

Listen, you can treat the Bible as an idol, but I simply don't take that position. The Bible is not God and God is not the Bible, and as long as you confuse the two together, then you have slipped into idolatry.

I guess you are using idolatry in the dictionary sense of the word since you disbelieve the scripture is inerrant. My definition of idolatry comes from the Bible, so I think I’m okay here, but thanks. I would say, “I respect the Bible as the Word of God”. You say that is your stance also—except you are having trouble discerning which or both of the testaments is true, yes? No? I’m not being flippant here…

Read any serious theologian and they will point out the fact that the Bible is of human construct and the question of "divine inspiration" is just that-- a question. There simply is no way to tell how much of the Bible is divinely inspired, if any, and there are numerous theological theories on this.

So, would you consider the following persons “serious theologians”?

Paul

John

Luke

Mark

Matthew

Augustine

Aquinas

Luther

Calvin

John Paul II

Shall I continue this list? Why are only anti-inerrant theologians "serious"? Did you think Paul and John and others facing persecution and martyrdom were not "serious" enough for you? You have a double standard here. Who is superior in theology? The commentator two millennia later or the men who wrote the theology itself?!

First of all, the books in the DSS that are found in the canon are copies, not originals. Secondly, after being found, the publication of the RSV had to be stopped to make some corrections in the texts because the rule-of-thumb used theologically is to go with the earliest texts. Fortunately, the corrections that had to be made were largely minor.

Since the DSS only include copies of the original texts used in the canon, their veracity simply cannot be verified.

You both continue to miss my point. With no autographs extant, we can make one of two assumptions:

1. All copies are different than the autographs

2. Some copies are exactly the same as the autographs

Please explain here why you know absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, that #1 is the correct position. Thanks!

 

[metis]

So, would you consider the following persons “serious theologians”?

Paul

John

Luke

Mark

Matthew

Augustine

Aquinas

Luther

Calvin

John Paul II...


You both continue to miss my point. With no autographs extant, we can make one of two assumptions:

1. All copies are different than the autographs

2. Some copies are exactly the same as the autographs

Please explain here why you know absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, that #1 is the correct position. Thanks!

I gotta be brief.

The listing above is merely a smokescreen because if you actually checked them out, probably most did not believe in inerrancy. Aquinas, for example, claimed that the "O.T." could not be inerrant, but he wrote that it prefigured Jesus anyway. JPII did not claim to my knowledge that the scriptures were inerrant (the RCC claims only the basic teachings as found in scripture are inerrant). In the 2nd century, Papias said that Mark's gospel was both incomplete and misleading at some points.

As far as your last question is concerned, there should logically be a "3: It is impossible to determine today whether copies were the same as the autographs, and some copies could be the same and some might not be". For example, we know that the ending of Mark now found in your Bible is not found in the oldest copies. We know that John's gospel has a great many spelling errors.

BTW, your response in regards to the angels at Jesus' tomb is no more than a fabrication that defies even basic logic, especially since the words he/they supposedly spoke simply do not match.

 

[viole]

I'm not sure. I was trying to be Socratic by asking why you're mean spirited and sarcastic to other born agains. This seems contrary to what Jesus said about born agains. Obviously you've experienced hurt (not "the church was judgmental" but some real and deep wounding somewhere).

If you identify "starting thinking rationally about my beliefs" with "experiencing hurt", then that was very painful . Actually, it was not. It is very exhilarating to realize to have been wrong. I think it is as good as realizing to be right.

I'm sorry. I honestly am. What can I do?

Nothing. Or pray for me. Same thing, basically

Ciao

- viole

 

[Neo Deist]

I answered you the first time...

No you did not. An answer would have been something like "NKJV" but instead you went with "Which God do you think is unable to preserve copies of a written document exactly, precisely, wholly?" Are you making the claim that ALL Bibles are inerrant? If so, we have some serious issues to discuss.

That all sounds good, but I said the N, N, N, NKJV or the NAS, both of which have excellent source texts they draw from in the original language.

Please read what I write before accusing me of KJV-only narrowmindedness.

And my initial response indicated that ALL of the KJVs fall into that category, which includes your NKJV. The newer ones are merely rewrites of the older.

Respectfully, if the copies match the autographs the possibility is there that the copies are infallible! We would need the autographs to prove the copies are different! Items like the Yemeni Torah scrolls and the Dead Sea Scrolls shed light on the veracity and excellence of the copies of the scriptures extant.

"If the copies match..." is a moot point because we have no way of knowing. The DSS and other sources don't shed light on squad when it comes to the Autographs. I am fine with someone believing that the Autographs are infallible, but let it stop there. Everything else that is a copy of a copy is subject to human error.

Are you disagreeing with me that the Ancient Jews were enlightened, your reason being because they did NOT believe in Satan as the devil?

Nice redirect and dodge. Now go back and answer the question, especially since you studied Hebrew in secular school, and would know that Satan comes from ha-satan, and it refers to the adversary (a title), and that adversary is carrying out God's orders, not working against God.

If I was in your class and said I loved you but didn’t read your syllabus or textbook, indeed, I couldn’t trust your syllabus or textbook, would I receive an A in your course? Is that how I’m to approach God?

If you were going to teach a class on astronomy, would you do it from a book written 2,000 years ago or 2 years ago?

I guess my real problem is why it upsets you so that I say the Bible is God’s Word, inerrant? Just today I witnessed to an atheist who smiled as he said, “Hey, if religion works for you, great.” It sounds like you want me to less fundamentalist about my faith. Of what benefit is that to you, should I write today, “Whew! I thought I was headed straight through my Bible to Heaven, but now I know the truth, God is great, but you cannot find Him in the Bible! That’s a relief! Now, what to do next to seek God…”

There is more to God than the writings of long dead humans.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I gotta be brief.

The listing above is merely a smokescreen because if you actually checked them out, probably most did not believe in inerrancy. Aquinas, for example, claimed that the "O.T." could not be inerrant, but he wrote that it prefigured Jesus anyway. JPII did not claim to my knowledge that the scriptures were inerrant (the RCC claims only the basic teachings as found in scripture are inerrant). In the 2nd century, Papias said that Mark's gospel was both incomplete and misleading at some points.

As far as your last question is concerned, there should logically be a "3: It is impossible to determine today whether copies were the same as the autographs, and some copies could be the same and some might not be". For example, we know that the ending of Mark now found in your Bible is not found in the oldest copies. We know that John's gospel has a great many spelling errors.

BTW, your response in regards to the angels at Jesus' tomb is no more than a fabrication that defies even basic logic, especially since the words he/they supposedly spoke simply do not match.

Oh I know--I threw in some of the names like JP II to see if you were paying attention.

Go ahead and take Mark 16:9-20 away and guess what? The gospel ends with "And they fled the empty tomb and were afraid." The Marken ending issue is what is a smokescreen to me.

I'm aware of the harmony issues people find with the angels problem... you seem pretty set that there was one and only one time an angel or angels spoke to anyone. The resurrection would have warranted multiple pronouncements--indeed Jesus appeared to the apostles over a dozen times following.

But look at your 3! It is impossible to determine today whether copies were the same as the autographs, and some copies could be the same and some might not be. No kidding! So why do you and others KNOW the copies aren't God's Word?