Biblical infallibility is important to me because it means that I’m allowed to believe that the words I have received from God in scripture are 100% true. It gives me great joy to open those pages knowing that each word, phrase and punctuation mark is true and I glorify God for the miracle of scripture preservation. Every now and then someone says or writes something, an atheist, Bible scholar, or commentator in a forum that tries to put doubt in my mind as to the truth of some part of the Bible I have today. At this point I have two choices, I can believe those people or I can trust that just because there appears to be something wrong with the Bible that that is because the minds of men are fallible and not God’s word. Today I even have the benefit of searching out those claims and finding satisfactory answers through today’s widespread availability of knowledge, something I also praise God for. Sometimes people try to make me or others feel like a heretic or bad person for this belief but I know that God rewards faith, so I know their false accusations shall amount to nothing in the end. I may not be perfect but one thing I know, that I and many others shall be rewarded for is their faith that God preserved His word to a degree that only God could, absolute perfection! So you may criticize me if you like but I will always give glory to God for this great miracle. Praise God! Thank you Lord for the King James Bible.
Why Biblical Infallibility is Important to Me
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Infallibility is NOT inerrancy!
The concept of inerrancy, whether Biblical or otherwise, means totally without error of any kind.
God has chosen to use imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word.
The Bible is not, nor is (or was) it intended to be inerrant (totally without error).
The Bible is, both in the original manuscripts and in all (non-cultic) modern translations, infallible.
This means that while the Bible does indeed contain errors; God superintends the process of recording and transmitting His word to ensure that any errors contained in it are not of such a nature that His message would be corrupted by them.
The Bible, in its present form, is totally reliable as a guide for faith and practice in our relationship with God an our understanding of the world and its pople. The Bible is the absolute standard of truth; and ANYTHING which contradicts it is a lie or an error.
The concept of inerrancy, whether Biblical or otherwise, means totally without error of any kind.
God has chosen to use imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word.
The Bible is not, nor is (or was) it intended to be inerrant (totally without error).
The Bible is, both in the original manuscripts and in all (non-cultic) modern translations, infallible.
This means that while the Bible does indeed contain errors; God superintends the process of recording and transmitting His word to ensure that any errors contained in it are not of such a nature that His message would be corrupted by them.
The Bible, in its present form, is totally reliable as a guide for faith and practice in our relationship with God an our understanding of the world and its pople. The Bible is the absolute standard of truth; and ANYTHING which contradicts it is a lie or an error.
I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt until you mentioned 'King James Bible'. Not that I have anything against it; I know that one better than any other bible. But, anyone who thinks that any bible doesn't have errors is delusional.
Regarding your "finding satisfactory answers through today’s widespread availability of knowledge", click the right link in my signature for a ride that you've never been on.
Regarding your "finding satisfactory answers through today’s widespread availability of knowledge", click the right link in my signature for a ride that you've never been on.
G
MarcR,
One of my favorite subjects.
Any comments MarcR from what I offer below, would be deeply appreciated. Just wanted to expand on what you wrote. I agree with your response.
Would you agree that discrepancies in the bible are not errors or contradictions? Alleged discrepancies is better. For instance, suppose one gospel writer records this: A. "Mary saw Jesus at the tomb."
Concerning that same place and that same time, another gospel writer records: B. "Mary and two other women went to the tomb."
A. "Mary saw Jesus at the tomb."
B. "Three women went to the tomb."
Critics claim that A and B contradict each other.
I don't. Of the three women, Mary was at least one who saw Jesus at the tomb.
So A and B do not contradict each other. Rather, they are better termed as an alleged discrepancy. Why?
Because Jesus may have only revealed Himself to one of the three. That's a reasonable conclusion.
Or
Because the writer focused on Mary and she was the subject and the other two women at the tomb were not further mentioned. Just that two women were with Mary.
In other words, there is no contradiction. And the discrepancy is only an alleged discrepancy. Explanations clarify it. Reasonable explanations.
You wrote; "God has chosen to use imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word." TRUE.
God gave Moses two tablets of stone with the ten commandments imprinted on them. Moses didn't need to translate them. But what did he do? He broke them. The stone tablets. (Moses was the only person to break all ten commandments at one time!
)
There is a book that claims to be inspired by God. In that book, the Messiah's birth is prophesied and it is the city of Jerusalem that is mentioned and not Bethlehem as his place of birth.
A prophecy. Is there a reasonable explanation for the book's inaccuracy? No. Why? Because the bible already affirmed Bethlehem as the city of the Messiah's birth. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Not Jerusalem. If Jerusalem is allowed on grounds of "Bethlehem is in the district of Jerusalem" it ruins, destroys the purpose of the prophecy concerning His birth.
Some so-called errors are miniscule. Misspellings of names. Incorrect number. Etc.
Those, however, are corrected, clarified by the multiple number of witnesses. What do the texts, manuscripts say? A solid answer emerges. The errors are addressed and cleared up.
Original text English: Galahad.
Second generation copy: Galahad
Third generation copy: Gilahad.
Fourth generation copy produced by having only the third generation before the copyist. So the error occurs again: Gilahad.
How many errors occur in the text, the body? One. There's only one error. I have learned that critics count it as two errors, creating a false impression.
Hope this will be helpful to others.
One of my favorite subjects.
Any comments MarcR from what I offer below, would be deeply appreciated. Just wanted to expand on what you wrote. I agree with your response.
Would you agree that discrepancies in the bible are not errors or contradictions? Alleged discrepancies is better. For instance, suppose one gospel writer records this: A. "Mary saw Jesus at the tomb."
Concerning that same place and that same time, another gospel writer records: B. "Mary and two other women went to the tomb."
A. "Mary saw Jesus at the tomb."
B. "Three women went to the tomb."
Critics claim that A and B contradict each other.
I don't. Of the three women, Mary was at least one who saw Jesus at the tomb.
So A and B do not contradict each other. Rather, they are better termed as an alleged discrepancy. Why?
Because Jesus may have only revealed Himself to one of the three. That's a reasonable conclusion.
Or
Because the writer focused on Mary and she was the subject and the other two women at the tomb were not further mentioned. Just that two women were with Mary.
In other words, there is no contradiction. And the discrepancy is only an alleged discrepancy. Explanations clarify it. Reasonable explanations.
You wrote; "God has chosen to use imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word." TRUE.
God gave Moses two tablets of stone with the ten commandments imprinted on them. Moses didn't need to translate them. But what did he do? He broke them. The stone tablets. (Moses was the only person to break all ten commandments at one time!
)There is a book that claims to be inspired by God. In that book, the Messiah's birth is prophesied and it is the city of Jerusalem that is mentioned and not Bethlehem as his place of birth.
A prophecy. Is there a reasonable explanation for the book's inaccuracy? No. Why? Because the bible already affirmed Bethlehem as the city of the Messiah's birth. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Not Jerusalem. If Jerusalem is allowed on grounds of "Bethlehem is in the district of Jerusalem" it ruins, destroys the purpose of the prophecy concerning His birth.
Some so-called errors are miniscule. Misspellings of names. Incorrect number. Etc.
Those, however, are corrected, clarified by the multiple number of witnesses. What do the texts, manuscripts say? A solid answer emerges. The errors are addressed and cleared up.
Original text English: Galahad.
Second generation copy: Galahad
Third generation copy: Gilahad.
Fourth generation copy produced by having only the third generation before the copyist. So the error occurs again: Gilahad.
How many errors occur in the text, the body? One. There's only one error. I have learned that critics count it as two errors, creating a false impression.
Hope this will be helpful to others.
Last edited:
Matthew 28:1 mentions that Mary Magdalene was one of three women who went to the tomb
Mark 16:9 is concerned with Jesus' appearances; and mentions only Mary Magdalene because she was the only one of the three to whom He appeared. No conflict and no error!
You wrote; "God has chosen to use imperfect men to record and transmit His perfect Word." TRUE.
God gave Moses two tablets of stone with the ten commandments imprinted on them. Moses didn't need to translate them. But what did he do? He broke them. The stone tablets. (Moses was the only person to break all ten commandments at one time!)
There is a book that claims to be inspired by God. In that book, the Messiah's birth is prophesied and it is the city of Jerusalem that is mentioned and not Bethlehem as his place of birth.
God gave Moses two tablets of stone with the ten commandments imprinted on them. Moses didn't need to translate them. But what did he do? He broke them. The stone tablets. (Moses was the only person to break all ten commandments at one time!
)There is a book that claims to be inspired by God. In that book, the Messiah's birth is prophesied and it is the city of Jerusalem that is mentioned and not Bethlehem as his place of birth.
.
I find your remarks very sound.
G
Thank you MarcR.
Uhm, I did not know or remember how many women and who saw first and did not see when I wrote my example A. and B.
You mean it was accurate? Wow! I'll even read the passages. Certainly, the women at the tomb and who and what will now be deeply seared into my memory.
Concerning Micah and place of Messiah's birth. There is a book that contradicts Micah's prophecy concerning Bethlehem. I don't believe the book. Just mention for example.
Micah's prophecy, as you well know, is fulfilled by Jesus: The Messiah born in Bethlehem. That small town, specifically mentioned in Micah's prophesy. Then hundreds of years later, a man named Matthew records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
The book that lists Jerusalem as the place of birth, is not inspired. And the answer from its supporters concerning the fact that it contradicts the bible/Micah is this: Well, Bethlehem is in the district of Jerusalem, so it doesn't matter. That basically cans the purpose of the messianic prophecies and along with the design, modal. Specificity. They become useless. Yet, they are the very writings that Jesus pointed to as a witness that He is the Messiah. "Search the scriptures...you do well."
Hey, that brings this to mind:
Suppose the book the claims to be inspired was in the hands of the Jews in the first century. They turn to it. They read it. It says the deliver, the savior, the messiah will be born in Jerusalem. Then Jesus comes along. He and apostles claim He's the messiah. "I'm the Messiah. I was born in Bethlehem."
You know MarcR that the Jews would laugh Jesus to scorn. Why? Because Messiah born in Jerusalem. They laugh Him to scorn even with His rebuttal: Bethlehem is in the district of Jerusalem!
Nope. Not much of witness when the prophet says one city but the one claiming to be the fulfiller of that prophet says another city.
Thanks MarcR for your insight. Very much appreciated.
Uhm, I did not know or remember how many women and who saw first and did not see when I wrote my example A. and B.
You mean it was accurate? Wow! I'll even read the passages. Certainly, the women at the tomb and who and what will now be deeply seared into my memory.
Concerning Micah and place of Messiah's birth. There is a book that contradicts Micah's prophecy concerning Bethlehem. I don't believe the book. Just mention for example.
Micah's prophecy, as you well know, is fulfilled by Jesus: The Messiah born in Bethlehem. That small town, specifically mentioned in Micah's prophesy. Then hundreds of years later, a man named Matthew records that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
The book that lists Jerusalem as the place of birth, is not inspired. And the answer from its supporters concerning the fact that it contradicts the bible/Micah is this: Well, Bethlehem is in the district of Jerusalem, so it doesn't matter. That basically cans the purpose of the messianic prophecies and along with the design, modal. Specificity. They become useless. Yet, they are the very writings that Jesus pointed to as a witness that He is the Messiah. "Search the scriptures...you do well."
Hey, that brings this to mind:
Suppose the book the claims to be inspired was in the hands of the Jews in the first century. They turn to it. They read it. It says the deliver, the savior, the messiah will be born in Jerusalem. Then Jesus comes along. He and apostles claim He's the messiah. "I'm the Messiah. I was born in Bethlehem."
You know MarcR that the Jews would laugh Jesus to scorn. Why? Because Messiah born in Jerusalem. They laugh Him to scorn even with His rebuttal: Bethlehem is in the district of Jerusalem!
Nope. Not much of witness when the prophet says one city but the one claiming to be the fulfiller of that prophet says another city.
Thanks MarcR for your insight. Very much appreciated.
Last edited:
A
We have to consider the times too.
These days things can be recorded on video cameras, audio tapes, photographs etc, we have the ability to be in one part of the world and relay to someone 1000 miles away what is happening through various mediums.
And even now some messages/meanings may slip through the net. So imagine back then how difficult it would have been to record something, especially if it was outside of your understanding.
These days things can be recorded on video cameras, audio tapes, photographs etc, we have the ability to be in one part of the world and relay to someone 1000 miles away what is happening through various mediums.
And even now some messages/meanings may slip through the net. So imagine back then how difficult it would have been to record something, especially if it was outside of your understanding.
I just want to expand on this a little bit, because it's an important point in textual criticism. In terms of critics 'counting' errors, this doesn't really happen. Variants aren't typically counted, but weighed, for precisely the reason you point out - a variant reading may not originate in a given manuscript, but may actually be an accurate transcription of an earlier manuscript that contained that error. This is why one cannot simply total up errors or variants.
The other point is that a direct genealogical analysis of the MSS is not possible, mostly because of the vast holes in the extant manuscript tradition. We can make general judgements about the kinds of variants and there genealogical descent (often down to a specific verse or phrase that has been varied), but the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few extant manuscripts that we can say is a direct descendant or ancestor to another extant manuscript.
I think all of the examples that we DO have are very late, so much so that they're worthless in terms of the kind of example you provide (we're talking 100s of generations after the original). So it's often prejudicial to clearly state that x variant originated in y manuscript (although it is possible to say x variant originated in z century or w textual tradition).
In regards to the OP, most people have covered the main points. Inerrancy, infallibility and preservation are all different concepts, and the error is usually in applying the reasoning behind one of these to one or both of the others.
In any case, even if we agreed that God had indeed promised to preserve a verbatim 100% accurate version of the Scriptures in a given Bible, that fact alone is not of any great help in determining which texts, in the several thousand year history of the Bible, are said texts.
The other point is that a direct genealogical analysis of the MSS is not possible, mostly because of the vast holes in the extant manuscript tradition. We can make general judgements about the kinds of variants and there genealogical descent (often down to a specific verse or phrase that has been varied), but the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few extant manuscripts that we can say is a direct descendant or ancestor to another extant manuscript.
I think all of the examples that we DO have are very late, so much so that they're worthless in terms of the kind of example you provide (we're talking 100s of generations after the original). So it's often prejudicial to clearly state that x variant originated in y manuscript (although it is possible to say x variant originated in z century or w textual tradition).
In regards to the OP, most people have covered the main points. Inerrancy, infallibility and preservation are all different concepts, and the error is usually in applying the reasoning behind one of these to one or both of the others.
In any case, even if we agreed that God had indeed promised to preserve a verbatim 100% accurate version of the Scriptures in a given Bible, that fact alone is not of any great help in determining which texts, in the several thousand year history of the Bible, are said texts.
Agreed.
Agreed, that of course also means the perfect originals were written by imperfect men.
Now you have just contradicted yourself, is God's word perfect or does it contain errors, which is it?
Again your contradicting yourself, assuming you mean the same thing by inerrant and infallible (and indeed both those words mean the same thing). Is the Bible infallible or does it contain errors?
So then it's not the Bible itself that's inerrant but rather the message that it contains? If that's the case Christians need to stop saying the Bible is inerrant and start saying the message of the Bible is inerrant. Personally I'm prepared to take the leap and say that the actual Bible is inerrant.
I'm sorry but when you claim that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth I don't believe that you actually believe it, from what you have said you only believe that the Bible is the overall standard of truth. If you thought the Bible was the absolute standard of truth you wouldn't believe that it contains errors.
Agreed, that of course also means the perfect originals were written by imperfect men.
Now you have just contradicted yourself, is God's word perfect or does it contain errors, which is it?
Again your contradicting yourself, assuming you mean the same thing by inerrant and infallible (and indeed both those words mean the same thing). Is the Bible infallible or does it contain errors?
So then it's not the Bible itself that's inerrant but rather the message that it contains? If that's the case Christians need to stop saying the Bible is inerrant and start saying the message of the Bible is inerrant. Personally I'm prepared to take the leap and say that the actual Bible is inerrant.
I'm sorry but when you claim that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth I don't believe that you actually believe it, from what you have said you only believe that the Bible is the overall standard of truth. If you thought the Bible was the absolute standard of truth you wouldn't believe that it contains errors.