To the best of my knowledge the Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest confirmed copies of scripture, but that it was possible for scripture to have been recorded before 800 BC is clear. There are references to ancient works that we have no known copies of.
In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- 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.
Scripture itself refers to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah or the Kings of Israel. It also refers to the Book of Jashar, and if I remember correctly the Book of the Prophet Nathan.
IF the direct word of God was given to a Prophet or the Apostles from God how can that word Be fallible when God is the inspiration of the word to begin with?
Writings, not direct words. I'll repeat what I said because I don't think you understand my point.
There are the direct words of God which are infallible. (Which includes direct words to Prophets and others from God.)
and then there's others teachings and writings between prophets and disciples that are fallible. (I gave the example of Pauls letters, or the book of Hebrews as an example.)
If it's not a direct quote, then the message can be misunderstood, the teaching can be misunderstood, and the concept can be 100% accurate, but the way its told/taught can have issues or errors. There's an instance even written down about Paul disagreeing with Peter and publicly corrected him because of what Peter was teaching. Where is the line drawn between "inspiration" from God and a humans teachings? Just because someone is a follower of God or they write something down, doesn't automatically mean their words are infallible. The example I gave of Peter, is a good example of that. He was teaching others something Paul considered inaccurate (requiring gentiles to be circumcised). And you could argue he had the Holy Spirit, so where is the line drawn then? Just because it's Peter? Just because it's Paul? Just because it's Matthew, or Mark, or Luke? Why do we prop people up on pedestals like they're somehow more infallible than we are?
If I understand correctly the book of Hebrews and Paul's writing are possibility fallible ?
The disagreement between Peter and Paul in context to the Gentiles coming to faith is covered very well in the book of Acts. James and other Apostles herd Paul's argument. The idea that Peter taught something different over debating their position on circumcision of gentiles was lais to rest.
Paul’s Confrontation: Paul confronted Peter publicly in Antioch, arguing that Peter's actions were not in line with the truth of the gospel. Paul emphasized that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, not through adherence to the law, stating, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Galatians 2:14) Act 15 they had a council .
Peter defended the position that Gentiles should not be burdened with the full yoke of the Mosaic Law, including circumcision. He argued that God had given the Holy Spirit to Gentiles without requiring them to follow Jewish customs.
the disagreement between Peter and Paul over the circumcision of Gentiles was a crucial moment in early Christianity that addressed the broader issues of inclusion, grace, and the nature of salvation. It highlighted the need for unity within the diverse body of believers and the importance of adhering to the core message of the gospel.
I disagree. One Peter himself called the Writings of Paul Scriptures 2Pet 3:16. Hebrews writer is unknown although many believe it to be Paul. Yet the text is very much Christ Centered and supported in the totality of all scriptures both Old and New.
Please elaborate. How do you think it should be written? Or do we just throw it out? Ever hear of the Jefferson bible? Perhaps you would like it better.
Everything should be taken back to what God said directly. Does it contradict what God/Jesus says? That's the standard. And if I'm not mistaken, that's the standard to when Scholars decided what to include/not include when they were putting the bible together, because they based it off of what God said.
What did Paul have to correct concerning Peter? Not his writings. Paul had to correct Peter's behavior and Peter learned.
You also have to note that Peter wrote his letters much later than when he was corrected. By the time Peter wrote them, he changed and matured in Christ.
From AI search:
Timeline and Maturation
The incident at Antioch (recorded in Galatians 2) likely occurred between AD 48 and 50, shortly before or around the time of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, approx. AD 49). In contrast, Peter’s epistles were written much later in his life:- 1 Peter: Most scholars date this letter to approximately AD 62–63.
- 2 Peter: This letter is widely considered Peter’s final writing, composed shortly before his martyrdom under Emperor Nero, around AD 67–68.
Paul had to correct Peter's behavior and Peter learned.What did Paul have to correct concerning Peter? Not his writings. Paul had to correct Peter's behavior and Peter learned.
You also have to note that Peter wrote his letters much later than when he was corrected. By the time Peter wrote them, he changed and matured in Christ.
thats the way ive always read it.
The context of the disagreement is circumcision of gentiles between Peter and Paul. That was corrected in the light of scripture as seen in The Book of Acts. There is no disagreement contextually between Peter and Paul, that issue was laid to rest. IF there was no correction, then that would be an issue. Yet Jesus Himself Admonished Peter in a Vision in the book of Acts concerning the Gentiles who found faith in Christ. The matter was closed and both were in agreement.
So, to focus on the debate and of gentile circumcision and say they were not in agreement is not the end of the context. And use the story to suggest fallibility of Paul is error. They came into agreement with the word of God and they both agreed that Gentiles should not be circumcised.
Trying to remember which cult it is that hates Paul. There are probably more than one. Hebrew Roots I think is one.