Here is a question. What is your response?

[brent]

The bible is infallible? Which one? They are all different and the differences can equate to different thoughts at times.

[adpetrafan]

Huh?

[brent]

Which Word of God is infallible? They can't all be.

[p-freak]

The Word of God is infallible (whichever translation you choose), but our interpretations are not.

[brent]

The Word of God is infallible (whichever translation you choose), but our interpretations are not.

If the translations are wrong (for whatever reason, accidental or purposeful) then we do not have the honest Word of God, right?

[rexreed]

I was taught years ago that the Bible was perfect, and contained no contradictions and could never be proven wrong. Yeah that did not last long but I went through my teenage years repeating those thoughts. Now I look at how ridiculous it was to believe that. Unless God were to physically produce the bible, in one universal language, with no help from man, from writing to publishing I don't see how you can pick one version of the Bible, as we know it, over another. Except for personal preference. So the answer is the New American Standard Version is the best.

[adpetrafan]

http://i-failure.blogspot.com/2009/06/i ... iable.html

[adpetrafan]

http://vimeo.com/38033253

[Preacherman777]

Those who are careful will state that the Bible is infallible in the original autographs. As written, when written. Of course we do not have any of the original autographs, but we do have a massive amount of ancient manuscripts, more in fact than for any other ancient piece of literature. This is a blessing because it allows us to do what is called textual criticism where in through the comparison of all these manuscripts, we can weed out where there have copies with mistakes or additions or reductions. It is believed that the Bible we have today reflects the original autographs with over 99% accuracy, losing no essential truths or teachings. The various translations differ from each other in regards to what they say (not how they say it) by about 2%, but again, not changing any major teaching or doctrine of the faith. This is just a very brief summery, but I wrote paper on this a few years back and it's a big relief to know that our Bible is so reliable.

[knotodiswrld]

Those who are careful will state that the Bible is infallible in the original autographs. As written, when written. Of course we do not have any of the original autographs, but we do have a massive amount of ancient manuscripts, more in fact than for any other ancient piece of literature. This is a blessing because it allows us to do what is called textual criticism where in through the comparison of all these manuscripts, we can weed out where there have copies with mistakes or additions or reductions. It is believed that the Bible we have today reflects the original autographs with over 99% accuracy, losing no essential truths or teachings. The various translations differ from each other in regards to what they say (not how they say it) by about 2%, but again, not changing any major teaching or doctrine of the faith. This is just a very brief summery, but I wrote paper on this a few years back and it's a big relief to know that our Bible is so reliable.

Oh Thank GOODNESS!!!! I was wondering if anyone was going to say that. You have summed up the doctrine of Biblical Infalibility, as taught by nearly all churches today, very nicely.

The bible is infallible? Which one? They are all different and the differences can equate to different thoughts at times.

Yes the Bible is infallible. There is only one Bible. But unless you can read Classical Hebrew and Koine Greek, you have never read The Bible ... not the real Bible. You have read translations of the original Bible, but not the real thing.

Now, any French student of Alexandre Dumas will tell you that even the very best English translation of, say, The Three Musketeers, looses a little something in the translation. The same is true of English Translations of The Bible. That is why it is necessary to go back and study the Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT.

There is only ONE Bible. The New American Standard is, IMO, an excellent English translation. But NONE of the English translations are infallible. But then, one would not expect them to be. None of them are actually The Bible.

One of the churches which most strenuously defends the doctrine of Biblical Infallibility is The Assemblies of God. From their own position paper on the matter (found at http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Pape ... rrancy.pdf) we read, in part:

We believe the Bible is the Word of God written; it is the revelation of the truths of God
conveyed by inspiration through His servants to us. As such, it is infallible and without
error.
...
....1. We refer to original autographs. While the science of textual criticism assures
us of a trustworthy text, inerrancy can be claimed only for the original writings (Jeremiah
36:2).

(emphasis mine.)

So, even those churches which most firmly believe in Biblical Infallibility and Inerrancy believe it applies to the original autographs, not to any modern translation, English or otherwise, or even the various assembled texts, such as the Textus Receptus or the "Majority Text".

If the translations are wrong (for whatever reason, accidental or purposeful) then we do not have the honest Word of God, right?

I think Preacherman covered this pretty well.

Now I look at how ridiculous it was to believe that.

Feel free to bring up some of these supposed contradictions. So far, I have been presented with only one that was difficult (not impossible) to explain. Most are easily addressed and arise only because people read what they think the Bible says, not what it actually says.

[brent]

funny someone should mention "teenager" here. Ding, ding, ding.

funny the KJV was not mentioned...bwuhahahaha

We have record in scripture that we do not have the very original transcripts. When God told Jeremiah (IIRC) to take a pen and write His words, the King found those on-going writings, kept destroying them. God said that he would give them again, and give more of them. So, for me, I do not want the very original writings, because they would not be complete in thought or purpose for me today.

Obviously God can still get his work done with some of the bibles we have. I just think it is funny to watch some people squirm when pressed to say some other bible is not a good copy to read. Copy is the operative word, in my view. My pastor says on Sunday, "Please read along with me in your copies of God's Word". I think he has it in spirit. We have good estimations. The important thing is not to capture word for word, because no two Jews can agree on Hebrew, and for sure the English language is very vague and crude. I want the thought for thought translation. To me that is important.

[LivingRock]

I'll agree that a lot of things have been changed from the Hebrew to English. I'm not a Hebrew scholar by any means, but I am studying beginning Hebrew, and I can tell you even at my level that there are changes. However, as Preacherman said, a lot of the changes don't have to do with major doctrinal issues. For example, in Genesis 22:2 when God says to Abraham, "Now take thy son, thy only son Isaac..." We may take this as rather a harsh commandment, but in the original Hebrew, the sentence was prefixed with "na-" which literally means "please." So God was saying, "Please take your son, your only son Isaac," which puts things in quite a different light! Or take Joshua 1:8, which says, "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditatetherein day and night." The word "meditate" signifies thinking deeply or remembering something, however, the original Hebrew word was, "hagah" which is translated as "meditate" but actually means to groan, sigh, mutter, or speak. So the text actually refers to speaking the word out loud, not just thinking about it. If actual meditation was meant, the word used in this context would have been "siy-chah," which means rehearing something in one's mind or thoughts. Again, different translation, but no great doctrinal changes.

[adpetrafan]

There are over 14,000 historical New Testament documents or document parts, in a variety of languages to study, and scholars are certain that 99.5% of the current New Testament text is in agreement with what the original authors wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Oxford, Oxford University Press.) The other .5% are mostly spelling and word-order changes that do not create any doctrinal difference.

[brent]

Right. She should not stand behind the pulpit, because that is the mans place and she most definitely not wear pants. God ordained pants for men in Deut.

[CatNamedManny]

Regarding "original autographs," what are the original autographs?

The Qumran group that preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls had two versions of Jeremiah, one 1/7 shorter than the other with the chapters in a different order. One of those versions was preserved as part of the Greek Old Testament (the LXX); the other as part of the Hebrew. Until the discovery, scholars had figured the longer, Hebrew version (which is in our Bibles) was the correct one. Now, no one knows. Which is original? Which is the edited copy of the other? We thought we knew; now we don't.

We thought we knew how Mark ended, but the oldest manuscripts we now have don't include the last two-thirds of the final chapter.

We don't actually have any of the "original autographs" of any book of the Bible, so appealing to that as the standard of infallibility isn't particularly convincing. Those original autographs could theoretically say anything. Further, at one point do you go so far back that you're looking at rough drafts or unfinished documents? Arguably, the "original" could be something the author never intended for use.

Finally, if our argument is, "The true Bible is infallible, but we don't have it," then we are essentially agreeing that the Bible we hold in our hands is not infallible.

Regarding contradictions, I'd point out Paul's use of the Old Testament as a potential problem.

In Galatians 3, Paul is using Abraham as an example of someone being credited for his faith, rather than his works. He wants to argue that since Abraham predated the law and received a promise, that promise was fulfilled in Jesus, and the Law's arrival in the interim did not invalidate that promise. Gal. 3:16 says: "The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ."

But the problem is that Genesis does say "seeds." At least, the Hebrew word for "seed" is plural when it's used in the original promise to Abraham. Paul, a Pharisee, surely knows this. He has changed the words of the OT text to suit his purposes, even though the text says the exact opposite of what he argues it says.

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul changes the text of Isaiah 49 from future tense to past tense. And Matthew 3 cites Hosea 11 as a prophecy predicting the flight of Jesus to Egypt – except the original context of Hosea is clearly talking about Israel's exodus, not Jesus.

Other contradictions can be found throughout the Old Testament stories. Look closely, especially in the original Hebrew without the smoothing efforts of modern translations, at the Joseph story in Genesis 37. Who took him out of the pit, to whom was he sold, and who sold him to Potipher? The brothers, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? The names and circumstances conflict.

In the flood story, is Noah to take two of every unclean and seven pairs of every clean animal (Gen 7:2)? Or two of "all living creatures" (7:8-9)? Why does Noah, his family and all the animals enter the ark and God close the door (7:14-15) after it's rained for 40 days and nights (7:13)? Did it flood for 40 days (7:17) or 150 (7:24)? Why does God form a covenant with Noah twice? And how is it that Noah, hundreds, if not thousands, of years before the establishment of Torah, knows what clean and unclean animals are and begins making sacrifices? (The same question could be asked of the Cain and Abel story.) The fact is you can tell two parallel stories of the flood simply by separating out all the verses using the word "YHWH" and the ones using the word "Elohim" for God.

In the creation story, it's very similar. One story, in Genesis 1, calls God Elohim and lays out seven days of creation. But in Genesis 2:4b, the word is now YHWH, and humanity is created not on the sixth day but "on the day YHWH made the earth and sky," which according to the previous chapter was the third day. The earth is not filled with water, as in Chapter 1, but with a single stream. And God doesn't put plants all over the earth; he simply plants a garden. The creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are inconsistent and contradictory. They do not tell a unified story of God creating the world, which opens up some questions, needless to say.

Finally, what about the "later" parts of the Old Testament? Proverbs 26:4 says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly." The very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly"!

Further, even though the Ten Commandments call down generational curses on those who disobey God, Ezekiel 18 says "only the soul that sins shall die. The son will not share in the guilt of the father." In Exodus 21, male Hebrew slaves must be released after six years' service, but females cannot be freed. In Deuteronomy 15, both male and female Hebrew slaves must be released after six years' service. In Exodus 12, God specifically forbids the Israelites from boiling their passover meal; they should only roast it. But in Deuteronomy 16 (in the Hebrew; the NIV at least smooths this over), God commands that they boil it. 2 Chronicles, perhaps the last written book of the Old Testament, tries to split the difference in chapter 35.

And don't get me started on how Israel should relate to the Gentiles. Moses, Joseph and Boaz take Gentile wives, Gentiles are part of Jesus' lineage, and Esther and Jonah are very Gentile-friendly (well, kind of). But Ezra and Nehemiah tell the returning exiles to send away their Gentile spouses, and God in Joshua orders one of the worst examples of ethnic cleansing in the history of the world, despite little evidence those cities were any worse than the Ninevah he orders Jonah to evangelize (which he then turns around and condemns again in Nahum).

There are problems in the New Testament, too, though I'm not as familiar with them. Does Jesus clear the temple near the end of his ministry (Matthew, Mark and Luke) or near the beginning (John)? Why does 2 Peter discuss Paul's letters as being part of scripture, when that wasn't the case until long after Peter's death? Why does Acts never mention a single letter of Paul's? Why does Paul never himself mention taking a missionary journey? Why does Paul's autobiography in Galatians 1 contradict Luke's account of his travels? Why is it so hard to follow the journey of Paul to Rome in Acts?

All of these "problems" make sense if we understand that the Bible, like Jesus, is fully human while also fully divine. If we stop incorporating our modernist notions of history and objectivity onto ancient, premodern texts, that would help, too. But as long as Christians and atheists hold the Bible to the same impossible standard of perfection and infallibility, the atheists will win.

Which is probably why the Bible never claims infallibility for itself. It does claim in 2 Timothy to be God-breathed and useful. The definition of that phrase has been long debated, of course. But recognizing that the words "inerrant" and "infallible" aren't to be found in the text would be a start to uncovering a better way of reading the Bible, in my opinion.