Is The Bible Infallible?

[bbyrd009]

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.

[Orthodoxy]

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:

I remember when I was young and I first began to read the Gospels. I was rather confused about the repetition of the story of Christ. I was further confused that there seemed to be many places where the same event was told in different ways, using different words, and sometimes with different people involved. Whether it was Christ’s encounter with the demoniacs (Luke 18:27ff; Matthew 8:28ff) or the words written above the cross (Mark 15:26; John 19:19), there were differences. I noticed that differences of this type were a primary criticism to which skeptics would refer when attacking the reliability of Scripture and the truth of Christianity. This disturbed me. If the Bible was inspired, these differences should not be there. Isn’t the Bible inerrant? If it is, it cannot have discrepancies. How could God have gotten it wrong? As I sought answers, I found initial comfort in those who would explain these “discrepancies” in some very creative ways. Most would say that the parallel accounts that I was having problems with were not really parallel at all. They were different encounters altogether!

These explanations satisfied me at the time. I thus unknowingly adopted a strict view that I call “technically precise inerrancy.” This means that all the writers of Scripture, by virtue of their ultimate source of information (God), recorded everything precisely as it occurred. It also means that we attempt to take the Bible with an absolute literalism until forced to opt for another approach.

I later came to realize that this methodology was not only unnecessary but was actually birthed, I believe, out of a very gnostic view of Scripture. I was so emphasizing God’s role in the writing of Scripture that the role of man could not be found. Yet if God used man in writing Scripture, and Scripture was intended for man, then would God not have used a common means of communication that did not require technical precision in describing events?

Read the whole post.

[freeatlast]

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.

[jfrog]

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

[Dante]

The results of this poll are surprising.

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

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.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

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.

Excellent article!!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Orthodoxy

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.

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

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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

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.

[Lafon]

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!