In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?

[biblestudent78]

Right only the original Hebrew does not relate to our world as it sits in this century or probably most before this one.

The Bible is not a handbook for moral behavior. The authors were not writing to us. They were writing to comtemporaries who had a very different take on things than do we. And don't comeback with some smack comment about it also does not include tv's, pc's and cars because that will simply reflect an understanding of the physical rather than the spiritual which is the actual understanding Jesus spoke of, not to mention all the prophets and how about Paul? What of the deeper spiritual understanding he had and portrayed through his letters?

Not to malign you, but you speak of truth, include truth in your forum name, but deny spiritual realities of the NT and one can only wonder about the old.

Let's talk about the "original Hebrew" The Greek rulers of Palestine required the academy in Alexandria - it was a university of the highest order - not a static library. They converted the currently available Hebrew scriptures from Hebrew 2nd century Hebrew into Greek. The Septuagint. Hebrews did not get their version published until about the year 1,000 AD. Those writing the New Testament wrote in Greek which in the case of uneducated fisherman who spoke only Galilean Aramaic as did Jesus. Yet, especially John wrote in exquisite greek incorporating very popular Greek ideology including the nature of the The Greek Context: To philosophers like Heraclitus and the Stoics, the Logos represented the rational principle that structures, orders, and animates the universe. Jewish tradition also had a parallel concept, the Memra (Aramaic for "Word") or Sophia (Greek for "Wisdom"). Logos whas the Greek concept of the Gods. Suddenly a Aramaic speaking uneducated Galilean fisherman expressed elevated Greek concepts.... the Logos.

 

[pinebeach]

Pick your theology. Then defend it by going back to the "source." I have already listed those sources, so pick one or two.

I do not understand your reference. I have not followed this thread from conception so explain if you want?

Can you not fully disclose your sacred sources? Please do. Reality therapy is painful no matter the source. I live in the current world, not the 16th century or the 18th or even the 20th century. I see those claiming the gift of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus prospering in the world were those who deny Spiritual Gifts declining. Perhaps the actual experience of Christianity is not an A or B dialectic. My person religious tradition says those gifts were time dependent. I personally to not belief in these manifestation of the Holy Spirit based on my theological upbringing. However, I do not put myself in the judgement seat of God. The practical reality believed by most Christians, is if it magnifies and honors God in Jesus, it cannot be wrong. In 1516 we said the deeds of the Roman Catholic Church were sinful and discarded them. In 1529 we were convinced Martin Luter was wrong. The only continuously operating Church of earth that was not condemned by the Protestant revolution was the Eastern Orthodox Church which continues to exist anti-Roman Catholic and fully in accord with Apostolic teachings although Protestants fail on purpose to understand their value of Icons.

Are you able to source actual ancient Hebrew or read it? Here's a big fat hint of my painfully arrived at conclusion.

Churches, with all that involves, are a far far cry from the simplicity of the gospel and the life we have in Christ. I have ceased living in other people's opinions or lack of faith or impudence with the belief I need to prove a thing to them. Kick the Bible down the road but it will still be the only actual truth available to us.

Neither myself or anyone else who understands the error(s) of Christianity to the extent they can do so, will or need to convince you or anyone else of the truth of scripture. You and anyone else, have the same ability to seek God and He tells us to.

 

[pinebeach]

Let's talk about the "original Hebrew"

Let's not and say we did.

Alexandria is long gone but God is still enthroned in the heavens and worshipped by all other creatures in that domain and by those on earth who have glimpse of it. We are not talking about the same thing and I do not have the ability to grant you further understanding so I can only say 'seek God and you will find Him when you search with your whole heart'. That is up to you. There was a time I would always try to answer people and thought I might be 'helping' them. We have access to God right now, by His Spirit but not everyone gets the same answers because God looks on the heart. Some people get puffed up and others get humbled and thankful.

Let's remember, Jesus will say to some that He never knew them while they point out all the things they 'did' in His name.

 

[biblestudent78]

Wow! So you don’t believe in Bible history? Then I’m assuming you don’t believe that God wrote it through chosen men? Sad!

TruthDefender: Here you are out over your ecclesiastical skies. Believing Bible history can mean assuming the history as described in the texts were written by those who claimed to have written them.

Nobody knows know who wrote much of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are names associated with their gospels between 50 - 100 yrs after they were written and we do not know who chose those names. We may believe Luke was a gentile thus had no personal knowledge of Jesus life. He like the other writers used sources but each wrote with their own personal take. If we don't know who they are, the idea that "God chose them" is a dogma and an assumption. It also assumes they all agree with each other on the details of Jesus life. They do not.

Some of the authors of the Hebrew bible used other, non-biblical books as references for what they wrote. Few of any of these external sources exist today. As mentioned in the Hebrew bible, this includes the Book of Jasher, Book of the Wars of the Lord, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, (both mentioned over 30 times), Book of Shemaiah, Story of the Prophet Iddo, Book of Statutes, Acts of Solomon, Annals of King David, Book of Samuel the Seer, Book of Nathan the Prophet, Book of Gad the Seer, Book of Anijah, Book of Jehu, Acts of Uzziah, Vision of Isaiah, Sayings of the Seers, Laments of Josiah and Chronicles of King Ahasuerus. Hebrew writers used extensive literary research during their textual creations.

As to who wrote the Hebrew Bible consider this:
There is no archeological or epigraphic evidence that the those living in Canaan before the 8th century BC had the ability to write literary Hebrew. Textural experts see archaic spellings and letter types indicating there is reason to believe that by about 780 BC or so, literary writing was a possibility. This was about 200 years or more after the life and times of important characters. The Kings, Prophets and Judges that lived before the invention of Hebrew literary writing include:
Patriarchs & Leaders
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua
Kings of Judah - Southern
Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoash
Kings of Israel – Northern
Jeroboam I (founder), Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash (Joash)
Prophets – North and South
Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Jonah, Hosea, Joel, (Isiah & Mica lived on the cusp of literary Hebrew)
Judges (saviors)
Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tola, Jair, Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Joel, Abiah, Amariah and Zebadiah, Abimelech

So, if these people did not have a Hebrew literary ability, who wrote the books with their names?

 

[TruthDefender]

TruthDefender: Here you are out over your ecclesiastical skies. Believing Bible history can mean assuming the history as described in the texts were written by those who claimed to have written them.

This is where you falter with your theories, right in the first paragraph! Respectfully, I don’t believe in your opinions. I believe in what Scripture tells us, which has been stated many times!

You can tell us you’ve researched the matter till you turn blue, but in the end, I believe Scripture over faulty theories and opinions.

 

[rewriter]

This is where you falter with your theories, right in the first paragraph! Respectfully, I don’t believe in your opinions. I believe in what Scripture tells us, which has been stated many times!

You can tell us you’ve researched the matter till you turn blue, but in the end, I believe Scripture over faulty theories and opinions.

So, you admit that you are just expressing your personal opinion and have no factual evidence to back it up and even choose to run counter to the recorded evidence that you will accept. That is fine, so long as you accept that no matter what support you claim to have, the actual support is your own personal opinion and what support you can must from your echo chamber.

I do not trust echo chambers for support, I prefer critical. sometimes challenging support.

 

[TruthDefender]

So, you admit that you are just expressing your personal opinion and have no factual evidence to back it up and even choose to run counter to the recorded evidence that you will accept. That is fine, so long as you accept that no matter what support you claim to have, the actual support is your own personal opinion and what support you can must from your echo chamber.

I do not trust echo chambers for support, I prefer critical. sometimes challenging support.

No, once again you’re twisting things, the opinions are yours. I trust in Scripture.

 

[Dino246]

God said this would happen. It's called the falling away. Here is one example as to why. Read His word and believe it and He would tell you these things.

1 Corinthians 11​

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

If this were “the falling away”, then it started in the first couple of decades after Jesus’ death. See 1 Corinthians. Frankly, labelling disagreement as “falling away” deepens the division rather than healing it.

While many of the controversy issues have clear resolutions in Scripture, some don’t, and intelligent faithful believers still disagree. Ultimately, some are right, some are wrong, but some don’t matter, and most probably aren’t salvific issues anyway.

 

[biblestudent78]

So, you admit that you are just expressing your personal opinion and have no factual evidence to back it up and even choose to run counter to the recorded evidence that you will accept. That is fine, so long as you accept that no matter what support you claim to have, the actual support is your own personal opinion and what support you can must from your echo chamber.

I do not trust echo chambers for support, I prefer critical. sometimes challenging support.

There are about 31 undisputed facts in my note. Given how your dogma determines your theology I can see why facts are your religious enemy.

 

[biblestudent78]

You do know that thousands of Christians don't buy your salad whatever it is. So instead of scripture flipping why not do what the bible demands that you give an account of your hope... in detail preferrably.

Here is a full account of my hope

 

[rewriter]

There are about 31 undisputed facts in my note. Given how your dogma determines your theology I can see why facts are your religious enemy.

Given that to date there are well over 500 references, ranging from conservative evangelical to liberal and heavily (beyond PhD thesis expectations) peer reviewed journals, cited in my still growing bibliography, I hope that your comments were misapplied to me.

Personally I recognize all your facts and could add in several you have not cited, including Herodian numismatics.

 

[rewriter]

Given that to date there are well over 500 references, ranging from conservative evangelical to liberal and heavily (beyond PhD thesis expectations) peer reviewed journals, cited in my still growing bibliography, I hope that your comments were misapplied to me.

Personally I recognize all your facts and could add in several you have not cited, including Herodian numismatics.

biblestudent78, an additional interesting challenge I have uncovered to the inerrancy of scripture lies in Isaiah 19:18. There are different textual variants regarding what the city is called, the name/title in the Masoretic Text, the official OT as first approved by the Jews circa 90 CE at the Council of Jamnia and later affirmed by the Christians in 397 CE, would have had sound political reasons to have been amended after 73 CE. The Septuagint likewise might also have modified the original text for political reasons. At least one targum of Isaih seems to include multiple variants, as if it is not certain what was original.

 

[Waden21]

There is an extreme amount of historical documentation that the Greeks tampered with the word to suit their ambitions.
In the original Hebrew scriptures, the Holy Spirit is known as the רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ (Ruach Ha-Kodesh). When the Greek translators processed this concept, the underlying meaning, gender, and nature of the Spirit underwent a radical linguistic shift.

1. The Erasure of the Life-Breath (Ruach vs. Pneuma)
In the original Hebrew mindset, רוּחַ (Ruach) is a concrete, experiential word. It literally means "wind," "breath," or "scent."

• To an ancient Israelite, the Spirit of God was as real, invisible, and vital as the very air moving in and out of their lungs. It was the dynamic, moving energy of creation (Genesi
• The Greek translators swapped Ruach for the Greek word πνεῦμα (Pneuma). While Pneuma also means breath or wind, Greek philosophy used the word to describe a sanitized, static metaphysical substance. The translation shifted the concept from an active, breathing, relational presence into an abstract theological component.

2. The Tampering of Gender (Feminine to Neuter)
One of the most profound changes under Greek influence was the grammatical and cultural flattening of the Spirit's identity:

• The Original Hebrew: In the Hebrew language, Ruach is inherently feminine. When the prophets wrote about the Spirit of God moving, hovering, or giving birth to new life, they used feminine verbs and imagery. The Ruach Ha-Kodesh carried strong maternal characteristics of comforting, nurturing, and bringing forth creation.
• The Greek Shift: The Greek word Pneuma is strictly neuter (neither masculine nor feminine). By forcing the feminine Hebrew breath into a neuter Greek noun, the translators grammatically stripped the Spirit of its maternal, life-giving identity, rendering it a genderless "it" in the text.
• The Western Masculine Shift: Centuries later, when the Greek text was translated into Latin and English, Western theologians struggled with calling a divine entity an "it." They shifted the pronouns to the masculine "He," completely erasing the original Eastern balance of the maternal Ruach.

3. Separation from Creation
In ancient Hebrew thought, the Ruach was the thread connecting God to physical matter. Psalm 104:30states, "When you send your Ruach, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground." The physical world and the spiritual world breathed the same air.

Greek philosophy, however, taught strict dualism—the belief that the spiritual realm is perfectly pure, while the physical, material world is inherently corrupt and dirty. Under this Greek influence, the "Holy Spirit" was separated from nature and creation. It became a distant, theological force meant strictly for legal salvation and mental intellect, rather than the raw, life-giving breath animating the physical universe.

Summary
By translating Ruach into Pneuma, the text moved away from a concrete, breathing, maternal presence that sustains all life, transforming instead into a clinical, Western theological doctrine.

 

[Waden21]

Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon.
The Odes of Solomon is an ancient collection of 42 Christian-Jewish hymns dating back to the 1st or 2nd century AD. Because they were written in Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic closely related to the language Yeshua spoke), they preserve the original Semitic understanding of the Holy Spirit (Rucha d’Qudsha) as an inherently feminine, maternal figure.

In Ode 19, the author uses bold, vivid poetic imagery to describe the Holy Spirit nursing creation and orchestrating the virgin birth:

The Text of Ode 19:1–5
In this passage, the author uses vivid, intimate imagery to describe the Holy Spirit in a distinctively feminine, maternal role:

Ode 19 depicts the Holy Spirit in a distinctively maternal role, utilizing imagery of the Spirit nursing creation, as discussed in the text found in the Odes of Solomon at the Gnosis Archive. [1]

---

Other Examples of the Spirit as a Mother
Because the Syriac language lacks a neuter gender, the text consistently refers to the Spirit with feminine pronouns and roles.

• Ode 28:1–2: The Spirit is likened to a mother bird protecting her young, with the author writing, "...so also are the wings of the Spirit over my heart".
• Ode 36:1: The author describes the Spirit as a comforting, maternal force that lifts the soul, noting, "...She raised me on high... She brought me forth before the face of the Lord".

These, along with other passages in the Odes, demonstrate that early followers of Yeshua often viewed the Holy Spirit as a divine, nurturing Mother.

 

[rewriter]

Ode 19 of the Odes of Solomon.
The Odes of Solomon is an ancient collection of 42 Christian-Jewish hymns dating back to the 1st or 2nd century AD. Because they were written in Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic closely related to the language Yeshua spoke), they preserve the original Semitic understanding of the Holy Spirit (Rucha d’Qudsha) as an inherently feminine, maternal figure.

In Ode 19, the author uses bold, vivid poetic imagery to describe the Holy Spirit nursing creation and orchestrating the virgin birth:

The Text of Ode 19:1–5
In this passage, the author uses vivid, intimate imagery to describe the Holy Spirit in a distinctively feminine, maternal role:

---

Other Examples of the Spirit as a Mother
Because the Syriac language lacks a neuter gender, the text consistently refers to the Spirit with feminine pronouns and roles.

• Ode 28:1–2: The Spirit is likened to a mother bird protecting her young, with the author writing, "...so also are the wings of the Spirit over my heart".
• Ode 36:1: The author describes the Spirit as a comforting, maternal force that lifts the soul, noting, "...She raised me on high... She brought me forth before the face of the Lord".

These, along with other passages in the Odes, demonstrate that early followers of Yeshua often viewed the Holy Spirit as a divine, nurturing Mother.

I see now what you are referring to when you comment about the Greek influences and I agree.

 

[Waden21]

I see now what you are referring to when you comment about the Greek influences and I agree.

You know then how hard it is to find what they wanted to hide. I’m assuming you also understand the overwhelming implications that a single twist like Mother being erased can have. This essentially makes Yahway nor male or female or makes him female to the reader. I know that’s a stretch but if there is no mother than the feminine things were done by God. I am just thinking out loud.. I have been alone in this for over two years and I start studying and I’ll read for 6-8-12 hrs sometimes.

 

[frederickdoc]

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
— Matthew 21:43 (KJV)

 

[BartholomewB]

• The Greek Shift: The Greek word Pneuma is strictly neuter (neither masculine nor feminine). By forcing the feminine Hebrew breath into a neuter Greek noun, the translators grammatically stripped the Spirit of its maternal, life-giving identity, rendering it a genderless "it" in the text.

Summary
By translating Ruach into Pneuma, the text moved away from a concrete, breathing, maternal presence that sustains all life, transforming instead into a clinical, Western theological doctrine.

Is there a different Greek word that would have been better than pneuma as a translation of ruach?

 

[Beekeeper]

There is an extreme amount of historical documentation that the Greeks tampered with the word to suit their ambitions.
In the original Hebrew scriptures, the Holy Spirit is known as the רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ (Ruach Ha-Kodesh). When the Greek translators processed this concept, the underlying meaning, gender, and nature of the Spirit underwent a radical linguistic shift.

1. The Erasure of the Life-Breath (Ruach vs. Pneuma)
In the original Hebrew mindset, רוּחַ (Ruach) is a concrete, experiential word. It literally means "wind," "breath," or "scent."

• To an ancient Israelite, the Spirit of God was as real, invisible, and vital as the very air moving in and out of their lungs. It was the dynamic, moving energy of creation (Genesi
• The Greek translators swapped Ruach for the Greek word πνεῦμα (Pneuma). While Pneuma also means breath or wind, Greek philosophy used the word to describe a sanitized, static metaphysical substance. The translation shifted the concept from an active, breathing, relational presence into an abstract theological component.

2. The Tampering of Gender (Feminine to Neuter)
One of the most profound changes under Greek influence was the grammatical and cultural flattening of the Spirit's identity:

• The Original Hebrew: In the Hebrew language, Ruach is inherently feminine. When the prophets wrote about the Spirit of God moving, hovering, or giving birth to new life, they used feminine verbs and imagery. The Ruach Ha-Kodesh carried strong maternal characteristics of comforting, nurturing, and bringing forth creation.
• The Greek Shift: The Greek word Pneuma is strictly neuter (neither masculine nor feminine). By forcing the feminine Hebrew breath into a neuter Greek noun, the translators grammatically stripped the Spirit of its maternal, life-giving identity, rendering it a genderless "it" in the text.
• The Western Masculine Shift: Centuries later, when the Greek text was translated into Latin and English, Western theologians struggled with calling a divine entity an "it." They shifted the pronouns to the masculine "He," completely erasing the original Eastern balance of the maternal Ruach.

3. Separation from Creation
In ancient Hebrew thought, the Ruach was the thread connecting God to physical matter. Psalm 104:30states, "When you send your Ruach, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground." The physical world and the spiritual world breathed the same air.

Greek philosophy, however, taught strict dualism—the belief that the spiritual realm is perfectly pure, while the physical, material world is inherently corrupt and dirty. Under this Greek influence, the "Holy Spirit" was separated from nature and creation. It became a distant, theological force meant strictly for legal salvation and mental intellect, rather than the raw, life-giving breath animating the physical universe.

Summary
By translating Ruach into Pneuma, the text moved away from a concrete, breathing, maternal presence that sustains all life, transforming instead into a clinical, Western theological doctrine.

What if it was God's intention to give us NT in Greek rather than Hebrew?
Should we be seeking the "true meaning" behind those words by translating them back into Hebrew?
None the less the comparisons are interesting.
Note on 3: the German word for smoke=rauch.

 

[Beekeeper]

There is no archeological or epigraphic evidence that the those living in Canaan before the 8th century BC had the ability to write literary Hebrew.

That is actually a pretty vague and speculative "proof".
No known archeological evidence available to a group of modern experts?
8th century BC was a long time ago and ANY writings found from that time are very rare and precious.