Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I am not saying that the bible isn't true, but are there inconsistencies between authors of different books that need to be reconciled? For example, Jesus says, If they are not against me, they are for me. Yet Paul says, we should contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints. Should we follow Christ's command for Christian unity or Paul's command for unity of christian doctrine?

There are different teachings on divorce. Jesus says, save for the cause of fornication. Paul says an unbeliever is not not bound. Do we accept both statements as true or do we say the bible is not perfect?

Paul says, we are saved by faith not works. James says we are made righteous by our works. Who is right or are they both right? How do we reconcile these differences?

Here is a link of a lecture about this topic for those interested. http://www.ronmillersworld.org/watch...ristian-story/

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

These topics you have brought up do not contradict themselves at all. We just have to read them in context.

Jude
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.


17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

In context, the people of whom Jude was speaking about are actually AGAINST Christ. Notice that these people were referred to as MOCKERS, not having the Spirit. (Rom 8:9, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his). These people who crept into the church were DENYING our Lord Jesus Christ. And then Jude says we should not let that happen, we should contend for the faith. So in context, this does not go against what Jesus said as per "if they are for me, they are not against me."

1 Cor 7
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

What Jesus said does not contradict what Paul taught. Notice, with regards to believers, Paul said the Lord said the woman should not depart from the husband, but if she separates, she has to remain unmarried or go back to her husband.
Now, fornication is done outside of marriage. Therefore, Jesus saying that fornication is the only reason for divorce implies that the spouse had already been with someone else prior to marriage and the current marriage partner did not know about it. Hence, upon finding out, it is ground for divorce.


1 Cor 7
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

Paul did NOT say the UNBELIEVER is NOT bound (neither did he say the UNBELIEVER is bound). He said the BELIEVER is NOT bound if the unbeliever decides to leave. Remember that unbelievers ARE NOT required to live their lives in accordance with the scriptures. The scriptures are for believers. Notice, Paul said if the unbeliever does not leave, then the believing spouse should not leave. IOW, the divorce can only be initiated by the unbeliever.
Jesus' saying in Matt 19 is binding upon believers. Unbelievers DO NOT live their lives according to Jesus' sayings. So in context, these scriptures are in super harmony.

First off, James is not even talking about how to get saved.

James 2
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James is NOT talking about how to be saved. He's talking about our lives as BELIEVERS. He's pretty much saying our works will show our faith. John made a similar statement in 1 John 3.

1 John 3
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.

James and John are saying, we should walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

Also, the context in which James uses the word "JUSTIFY" is a different context from where Paul used it.
James uses "JUSTIFY" as an act of showing something. Again, James is NOT talking about how to be saved.

James 2
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


JUSTIFY in Paul's context is to declare WITHOUT sin (Imputed righteousness by God). Rom 3 to Rom 5 deals with this extensively.

Rom 5
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

jus·ti·fy   [juhs-tuh-fahy] Show IPA verb, -fied, -
fy·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.
2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.
3.Theology . to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.
4.Printing .
a.to make (a line of type) a desired length by spacing the words and letters, especially so that full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.
b.to level and square (a strike).

Paul used JUSTIFY in a different context. Paul and James do not contradict each other.

CONTEXT is very important while reading ANY book. For the bible, not only context, but illumination from the Holy Spirit is VERY NECESSARY.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Have you also considered the possibility that it is within the manner that you understand the alleged inconsistencies, where the error is found, and which stands in need of being reconciled to the infallible truths of the Bible?

As for me, I see NO inconsistencies or contradictions which you alleged to exist between the instances noted, however, for me to sit here and attempt to provide you with a variety of other scriptural passages which serve to accomplish this would be a bit more than I would care to undertake at the moment. Suffice it to be said, if I should ever encounter any passage within the scriptural text which might appear to contradict that which is written in another that speaks of the same thing, then I am motivated to search until I am able to find a 2nd, 3rd or more passages which will serve to reconcile them all.

When experiencing difficulties in my efforts to reconcile what, at first glance, might seem to be contradictory statements of the scriptures, and after expending what I believe is sufficient time in studying, prayer, and fasting in an effort to reconcile such, then my final avenue is to suspend all other activities and go directly to its Author, petitioning Him for the answer.... after all, it is His sacred written Oracles, is it not? He should (and does) know where the truth prevails; and so I simply await hearing His response. I am most pleased to report that He has never failed me yet!

In summation, I am hold to the belief that there are NO contradictions or inconsistencies to be found within any of the scriptural text; and if it be that I should ever find one, then I would feel it needful for me to throw the entire Bible in the nearest trash bin and immediately set forth on a journey to find more perfect writings.... but alas, we both know that there are none! And so I will continue to rely, exclusively, upon the things recorded in that most sacred book ever published - the Holy Bible - for the things which I will allow to be the foundation of my belief in God.

Just my thoughts (tendered for what they might be worth).

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

tgbt, your explanations of christian unity and divorce sound reasonable, but your explanation of justification doesn't convince me of consistency. i'm not saying there isn't an explanation, just that your argument doesn't convince me.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

ok...i don't see any inconsistency though.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

But how do you see an inconsistency since Paul and James are not even discussing the same topic?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I think justification, and many other especially Biblical or spiritual concepts, must be understood in the context of their dual or even multiple natures, and should be discussed somewhat like blind men on an elephant~"over here, it is like this."
ha, like you are doing...

You can only, ever suspect, even expect, an incomplete understanding when meditating on any aspect of Scripture, I would also say, and while meditation is good, there is also a very definite sense in which a clearer understanding will only come by doing. We are even directed that we can't get all the way There, to paraphrase, with our intelligence--although you can use "wisdom, and knowledge." Hmm.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I don't know how to answer this question. I think the Bible is the Word of God and infallible; I'm not completely convinced that there are no "errors" in the translation from original texts to present versions.

I do think that the message is preserved even if there are some translation issues, or maybe a few parts of it were left out when they tried to put all the pieces of the documents together to make the one book.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

TGBT, v14 and 24 mention salvation and justification. I think james is talking about justification by works. I'm sure there is an explanation, I need to research it. It was just a subject that came up with biblical inerrancy.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

it is unavoidable that Kenites translations have appeared in Scripture; even the Bible says that "Kenites became scribes."

fortunately, most or all of these poor translations are pretty well known, even if some debate remains about some of the more contra ones.
"The earth became void," God is "against those who teach men to fly..." others, "women shouldn't chatter, gossip in church, etc. are all revealed, and especially easily now with the powerful bible engines out there, via lexicon, Strong's, context, et al, at the click of a mouse.

any passage that seems to be unclear or contradictory to another can now be more easily seen than ever.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

And I have to believe that the original manuscript of any book of the King James (since it is what came down to us) is Sacrosanct; and we have enough copies so that translations that either started out poorly, or become poor through evolution of lexicon (the original KJV acknowledged this in it's opening as it applied to itself) are revealed, don't you think?
Even though there's some Pauline stuff (that I think is poorly translated for our POV and current idiom) that I don't like on first reading, doing a bible engine of keywords, a quick dip into "lexicon" usually provides a fuller understanding. For instance.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

When speaking about inerrancy/infallibility, it's important to clearly define terms. For example, does inerrancy mean that the sun revolves around the earth, as some verses in the Psalms, when interpreted with a rigid literalism, seem to say?

A few weeks ago, Michael Patton wrote an insightful blog post about this question. Here's a portion:

Read the whole post.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

http://www.haydid.org/translat.htm

For those who feel God wrote the bible like he wrote on the tablets of stone that Moses carried down the mountain.

click on the link above to read the rest of a very fine paper on the subject being discussed.

History of the Translations of the New Testament: Westcott & Hort

It is a fact of life that there are many manuscripts of the New Testament, ranging from minute portions, dated as early as 45 to 55 CE, right through to whole copies of the New Testament dating as early as the middle 300's CE, and many more that are later than that, right up to around 1000 CE. No one claims to have any portion of the original documents themselves, and so everything of antiquity available to us are copies (of copies etc). This all took place before the printing press.

The copyists of the New Testament text were generally quite accurate in their work, but not as accurate as the Jewish copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures. There were mistakes made, but not usually significant. Most people do not bother to count copies of the New Testament that are younger than 1000 CE as significant in determination of the most accurate text. On such a basis there are around 28,000 manuscripts or parts of, that are considered as old enough to have any bearing on what would determine an accurate representation of the original Greek text. Such a large number of manuscripts provide a sufficient enough amount of data to compare each, and in doing so generally iron out any mistakes made by copyists. Although it does seem to some extent logical that the older the manuscript it is less likely to be influenced by scribal error. Although, such a conclusion is challenged by some of the most eminent of commentators on this matter.

Go to link at top of page if you care to read on.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I think the better question is.. which bible version is inerrant?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

The results of this poll are surprising.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Good question... It is surprising how many people believe that the KJV translation, for example, is infallible.

The doctrine of inspiration applies to the original textual autographs of Scripture in the original languages. Translations are not infallible.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Excellent article!!

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Does inspiration equal infallibility? And if so where is this inspiration equals infallibility doctrine found?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

i think the issue of biblical inerrancy is what divides conservative christianity from liberal christianity. the bible says all scripture is inspired but man has added infallible. good point. that is why i voted with the second option. i think infallibilty makes the bible an idol instead of god.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I voted for the 1st option.... doing so because of that which David expressed concerning it - "for thou has magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2).

Although the possibility, yea, even the probability prevails that in the various translations of the original writings of the sacred Writ (both Old and New), there might be found errors wrought by that which imperfect mortals have added to or taken away, such does not alter the fact that in its original context it is surely inerrant, for God Himself is so. Indeed, it will be the context of the Bible which God will use as the basis for determining the fate of all mankind, therefore if it contained even the most minute degree of error, He could not do so (see Revelation 20:11-12).

And that's my FINAL ANSWER! :nod

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Especially when the KJV itself, in the original 1690 edition, plainly stated that it could not be infallible, and that fuller meaning could always be derived from a more complete study of manuscripts, in its preface...

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Perhaps in times past, evil men have tried to stamp out the Bible making it illegal to own one. Or the RCC has tried to convince people that they were too ignorant to "interpret" the Word of God, so the trained priests were here to help you to know what they wanted you to know.

But, I am wondering that since evil men could not do either of the above with any success, could the many different translations have caused errors to be scattered across the contents of the Bible? Change one word in a passage or verse and that one changed word can change the context of the meaning?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Well, that's the advantage of having multiple early copies, the record survives--but see that a good translation in 1690 just cannot be defined the same with the current idiom as a starting point for many concepts in the Bible, leading to an answer for you, I think. The Word will have to have MSS documentation, clear and concise, like "the earth became void" was, to me at least; and then tested. While this may sound like a descent into ?, it is actually easier than ever before in history! Only takes several clicks, now?
Man, just go in to "lexicon" on a problematic Bible verse, on a Bible site, and not emerge with a fuller understanding...IMO.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

A related question: Can you think of a fictitious example of two scriptures (i.e., hypothetical only -- they are not really in the Bible) that nobody could reconcile if they tried to?

E.g., suppose one verse said "There was a lion in the room", and another, referring to the same event at the same place and at the same time, "There was no lion in the room". Would anyone here say that these two verse contradicted each other? Would Lafon have to throw out the entire Bible if those verse really were in the Bible?

My guess: no. Nobody here (with a few exceptions ;)) would dare to say that these verses contradicted each other. Some would be so bold as to say explicitly that they don't even see how anyone could claim they are contradictory (as they have pretty much said that about other claims of contradiction).

Why is that? What obligation do you think you have to believe the Bible is true no matter what? Why such fear?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Doh! What was I thinking? Of course everybody will say yes, those verses would be a contradiction (adding, of course, that there are no such contradictions actually in the Bible). :winkgrin

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Yep. With lack of precise details anything can be reconciled.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

There's one problem Timmy...

If there wasn't a lion in the room then no one would think to write "there wasn't a lion in the room". So the closer approximation to reality would be two verses where one says there was a lion in the room and the other that simly skips over the part about a lion being in the room.

Such passages are easy to reconcile. Instead of assuming the silence about the lion in the room means it wasn't there we assume the part about the lion in the room just didn't seem important to the author who didn't mention it.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Yes, there are examples of that. But there are also cases of direct contradictions, that some say are not. They often try to use the same defense, but it's a stretch, IMO. E.g., if Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the backs of two donkeys, it would be correct to record that event by saying, as the writer of Matthew did in chapter 21:

1And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

2Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

3And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

4All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

6And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

7And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

But would Luke's account also be accurate, in chapter 19?

29And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,

30Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

31And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

32And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them.

33And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?

34And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

35And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.

Mark and John also speak of a single animal. This is sometimes explained in the way you mention: that the three accounts mentioning just one animal do not preclude there being a second one. They just don't happen to mention them both. Matthew, however, is very careful in that detail, probably because he believed the prophecy in Zech 9:9 to be predicting two donkeys. It says "and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." The other three thought it was a poetic device, common in other parts of the OT especially (they're all over the place in Proverbs), referring to one animal in two ways, the second (the foal) being more specific.

Anyway, like you said, it is always possible to reconcile contradictions, but I would include examples with precise details. The above all seem quite precise, to me, as do several others.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Are you justified by works or are you not?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Why is that? What obligation do you think you have to believe the Bible is true no matter what? Why such fear?

well, and personally, the Bible is for me a reflection of the Word, and can only be clarified, not changed. The Bible is a type that you will not improve upon, and discount "believing is true, no matter what" at your peril.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Ha and justification is dual natured, so your answer is "yes."

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Did Paul think of it as double-natured? He said you are saved by faith and not by works.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

Some would say disbelieve the Quran at your peril.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I mostly agree. We bought a 1560 Geneva Bible with the original footnotes. It is somewhat harder to read because during that day, some letters of the English alphabet were not yet established, such as the "J", the "I" is used for the "J". the "U" and the "V" is interchangeable and the "S" is used mainly at the end of a plural word, but not within the word. Something that looks somewhat like an "f", without the slash through, was used as an "s"

I definitely see changes of words such as in ACTS 12:4

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

(Acts 12:4) (KJV)

And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people.
(Acts 12:4)(Geneva 1599)

(My computer Bible reference only has the 1599 version on it. A year later from 1560, they corrected many of the spellings in the Bible)

Not intending to start a new squabble over the holidays that Christians celebrate, but I wonder if King James (or his translators) had the word "Easter" inserted to replace the word "Passover" in the original text of the Geneva Bible?

Easter is a pagan celebration of the goddess Eostre according to this site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

Noah Webster wrote in the American Dictionary of the English Language 1828
http://1828-dictionary.com/d/word/easter

E'ASTER, n.

A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.

However, this website does not elaborate the origin of the word "Easter" that is in the actual hard copy of Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary.

The origin of the word 'Easter':n. [Sax. easter; G. ostern; supposed to be from Eostre, the goddess of love or Venus of the north, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors, in April; whence this month was called Eostermonath. Eoster is supposed by Beda and others to be the Astarte of the Sidonians. See Beda, Cluver, and the authorities cited by Cluver, and b Jamieson, under Pasyad. But query.]

Source: American Dictionary of the English Language 1828 by Noah Webster.
Publisher: Foundation for the American Christian Education

So...knowing that the scriptures have been translated, retranslated and retranslated over and over again, who to say that King James did not deliberately have the word "Passover" replaced with the word "Easter"? Or that his translators may have deceivingly inserted it in that place?

A quick rundown of the time of the yearly Easter celebrations.
Easter is always celebrated on the first Sunday, after the first full moon, after the Spring Equinox.

Passover starts on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../holidaya.html

Jewish months of the calendar year: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ar.html#Months

Sometimes the two celebrations coincide together, other times they are weeks apart. In rare occasions, they can be a whole month apart.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

So is the bible THE "Word of God"? Or is it "merely" inspired by God? One would think if it is THE "Word of God" there would be ZERO errors EVER. I mean, IF it is THE "Word of God" than each and every bible we hold in our hands is a living breathing entity.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I never thought of it in those terms Randy. Perhaps we use the term "Word of God" too loosely? We think in terms that since scripture is given by inspiration of God, it must be the Word of God.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (II Timothy 3:16)

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

And surely THE "Word of God" is much much bigger then what we see in the printed Word. And "In the Beginning" what language did God speak and how could any human dialect possibly convey it?

Perhaps in absolute terms the "Word" and His "Will" are one and the same and what we know of as the Bible is something altogether separate?

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I believe that the original texts of the Bible were without error. Translations are often unclear and some are mistaken. For example:

Genesis 49:6 (KJV)
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.

Genesis 49:6 (ESV)
6 Let my soul come not into their council;
O my glory, be not joined to their company.
For in their anger they killed men,
and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.

Even the OT Hebrew on which the KJV is based clearly states that they gored or "hamstrung oxen". The phrase was obviously a problem with the KJV translators.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I tend to think of "inspired" as God moved a man to write somethign God dealt with him to write. I don't take "Inspired" to mean God took control fo the man and made him write precise things like he was taking dictation from the Almighty.

Another interesting discussion I liek to think about is whether the canon is all the scripture we were really meant to have. After all, it was the majority who defined orthodox and heretical and decided what was apocryphal. Yes some of the apocryphal stuff is nonsense and completely contradicts the overall body of scripture, but others fit well. Some, such as Enoch, are quoted by our own Bible. Paul seems to have felt Enoch's writings were authoritative, yet it is left out of canon. It has some hard to believe stuff in it, but only becase we are conditions to refuse to believe that angels corrupted themselves by mating with women and teaching them "charms" or spells.

Re: Is The Bible Infallible?
 

I was told by an Evangelist that some of those writings might be "inspired" by God but not meant for the general population or for "preaching". But rather they are for those who wish to personally delve deeper into spiritual understanding. He believes angels took physical form and took human women, breaking God's ordinance of separation between man and angel. He might believe Enoch is authorative.