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

[rewriter]

rewriter
You are woefully lacking in referring to the Dead Sea texts as a validation for versions of the Old Testament because modern Jews and Christians reject the cannon of the Essenes.
The non-canonical books most frequently found at Qumran were the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch). These apocalyptic texts were incredibly popular with the Essene community, surviving in multiple manuscript copies.
Other widely read non-canon writings at Qumran included:
The Book of Tobit: A deuterocanonical book found in six copies.
The Wisdom of Sirach (Ben Sira): Found in several Hebrew fragments.
Testaments of the Patriarchs: Including various copies and adaptations of the Testaments of the Twelve, such as the Testament of Levi.
Sectarian Qumran Writings: Original compositions unique to the settlement, such as the Community Rule, the War Scroll, and the Temple Scroll.

You quote Codex Sinaiticus as a source but The Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360 CE) is another nearly identical early manuscript. It holds the oldest surviving complete copy of the New Testament, along with roughly half of the Old Testament. Codex Sinaiticus conversely and uniquely includes books like the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas as sacred books.

A more complete listing of versions of the Hebrew Bible include:
The Septuagint (LXX): The earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible, rendered into ancient Greek in Alexandria, Egypt, between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. It contains variations in text and order compared to the Masoretic Text and includes additional writings (often called the Apocrypha).

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Discovered in caves near Qumran between 1947 and 1956, these ancient scrolls date from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE. They contain fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except Esther) and provide vital evidence that multiple textual versions circulated concurrently in antiquity.

The Samaritan Pentateuch: An ancient Hebrew version of only the first five books of Moses (the Torah), preserved by the Samaritan community. It is written in a paleo-Hebrew script and features unique textual variants that emphasize the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.

The Targums: Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible that arose after the Babylonian exile when Aramaic became the common spoken language of Jewish communities.

The Peshitta: The standard Syriac translation of the Bible, created for the Aramaic-speaking Christian communities in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.

The Vulgate: A 4th-century CE Latin translation by Jerome, who translated the Old Testament directly from original Hebrew manuscripts, which became the standard text of the Catholic Church

The DSS offer us the earliest existent forms of most of the OT. Clearly not all the documents found there are scripture, and I know of no one who makes such a claim. However, they can be valuable in gaining insights.

As for citing Codex Sinaiticus and various Codices and targums, among others as you cited, they, like different modern-day translations are known potential sources and can offer insights.

Now the question as to why the Jews in the late 1st century chose the Masoretic Text as the official version of the OT is a question that could make for a very interesting discussion, especially since Christianity later also adopted it, even though from among the DSS and the Septuagint, it has the fewest undisputable connections to the NT. The DSS are clearly cited as is the Septuagint, but the Masoretic appears only in places where it reads the same as one or both of the other two. And I would note that both Jubilees and Enoch appear to be cited in the NT.

I also trust that you are aware that both Barnabas and the Shepherd were among the works considered for inclusion in the approved NT, so their inclusion merely acknowledges that the final canon of the NT was still fluid at the time of the writing of Sinaiticus.

I suspect that you and I could have several enjoyable sessions over beverages of our choice while discussing scripture.

 

[CS1]

So your argument is that Paul is fallible enough to need correction, but infallible enough that his teachings cannot be questioned? And we're supposed to resolve that by saying 'the human part can be in error, but the writing part can't'? Because that sounds like what your argument is. That somehow, when it's written down, it automatically becomes infallible just because the topic of the text is scripture/gospel based.

What about Mark 16 where passed verse 8, in the older records, verses 9-20 don't even exist? Why do some translations include them and others don't?

What about John 7:53–8:11 Where in some manuscripts, the woman caught in adultery is there and in older ones, she's not and also some manuscripts she appears in other places?

What about Matthew 16, the end of the Lords prayer, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." Which isn't found in the earliest manuscripts?

The existence of textual questions shows that humans have always had to examine, compare, and discern writings rather than simply assume every transmission, interpretation, or claim of authority is automatically correct.

Where did I say Paul is fallible enough to need correction, but infallible enough that his teachings cannot be questioned?
for a person who says I am not reading what you say , you are creating false narratives. I made my point. You can take or leave it.
You are not looking to learn or be open, to what I have said, you have an agenda. I do not agree with and thats ok. I will say this, I could be wrong. Yet you have not proven it. At least with Scripture. God bless were done.

 

[Delvianna]

Where did I say Paul is fallible enough to need correction, but infallible enough that his teachings cannot be questioned?
for a person who says I am not reading what you say , you are creating false narratives. I made my point. You can take or leave it.
You are not looking to learn or be open, to what I have said, you have an agenda. I do not agree with and thats ok. I will say this, I could be wrong. Yet you have not proven it. At least with Scripture. God bless were done.

It was an example based on what I was gathering from your point. Goodness gracious. I agree, we are done. God bless.

 

[CS1]

It was an example based on what I was gathering from your point. Goodness gracious. I agree, we are done. God bless.

Fine, but I am done. I answered Is 19:18. God bless .

 

[rewriter]

Paul was a Pharisees of the highest sect. Peter was a Fishermen. WE know they were seen as Ignorant and unlearned men.

Acts: 4: 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus
The truth is this was about circumcision for SAVED Gentiles. The Jews did what they always did become legalistic. Paul knew this oh to well. I remind you what Jesus Told Peter before this issue in the Book of Acts. Peter was not told by Jesus to ensure they gentiles were circumcised in the vision. Jesus said Don't call unclean what Ihave made clean did he not?

To answer you Isaiah 19:18
18 In that day five cities in the land of Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts; one will be called the City of Destruction.

which city title is the proper one in Isaiah 19:18.


depending on the translation it would seem to be speaking about a place in Egypt that worshiped the sun god then possibly God the one true one was worshiped. We do know that Eypyt became a Christian nation at one time. Prior to the Islamic takeover.

In prophecies as Isiah chapter 19 is we see darkly. There is a forthtelling and foretelling in Prophecies. I am not sure what the "proper one is. Yet it is not a foundational truth that weakens faith or the autorotative word of God.

I trust that you are aware that fishermen were considered a skilled class in the ancient world, thus middle to upper middle class in today's world. And I might also note that the first colonial governor of New Hampshire was a fisherman.

I also know a retired over the road trucker, clearly not someone with a former job that requires a great education, who studied at various institutions of higher learning while working and can read Biblical Greek, Hebrew and ancient Syriac just like you and I read English. Do not let prejudice over someone's chosen employment dictate their educational level. Paul might have declared his studies as a Pharisee, but he also admitted to being a tent maker, clearly a lower class job.

 

[Delvianna]

Fine, but I am done. I answered Is 19:18. God bless .

That had nothing to do with me, that was rewriter....

 

[CS1]

I trust that you are aware that fishermen were considered a skilled class in the ancient world, thus middle to upper middle class in today's world. And I might also note that the first colonial governor of New Hampshire was a fisherman.

I also know a retired over the road trucker, clearly not someone with a former job that requires a great education, who studied at various institutions of higher learning while working and can read Biblical Greek, Hebrew and ancient Syriac just like you and I read English. Do not let prejudice over someone's chosen employment dictate their educational level. Paul might have declared his studies as a Pharisee, but he also admitted to being a tent maker, clearly a lower class job.

I trust you are aware they were called ignorant and unlearned men. I did not say they were stupid. But I would not say I am of greater Knowledge of God than Paul because I have been to Seminary or have a degree. Nor what I think that of Peter too.

 

[CS1]

That had nothing to do with me, that was rewriter....

he can see my answer to it.

 

[GWH]

And how do you discern what is good if you can't take the Lord's quote as good? God is the standard for what is "good", so what other standard are you then applying to it to discern what is "good"? Is there a better standard than God's? Because you have to compare what God is saying, to then... what? A humans? That's pretty backwards.

Well, the Lord's quotes in the NT update and amend what was said in the OT (Heb. 7:11-10:1), so I begin by interpreting the OT in light of the NT. A biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible might well begin with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers.

Two NT teachings may be deemed key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

Do you want me to continue?

 

[GWH]

GWH,
Deep waters but too many undefended assumptions. Your statement "Both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality." This in my opinion is a common but perverted dialectic. These are not the dialectic families that exist and are perhaps the least important. Christianity is not a theory. It has nothing to do with "theism." Christianity is a way of life or it is nothing at all. It far less about abstractions like theism than it is about the reality of loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Atheism is not a philosophy. It the opposite of a philosophy as philosophies have structure, hierarchy, rules, borders and conditions for acceptance. Atheism has none.

"The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory." Most, if not all, Christian "knowledge and Messages" are contradictory. A precondition for ruling out in or out knowledge is valid only for those who declare that only the NT contains all valid knowledge. It excludes any possibility of truth from the OT and itself is a dogma looking for validation...not supplied. You claim the NT is the most credible collection of writings "purporting to be a communique from God."

If tens of thousands of Christian religions cannot agree on what the communique from God is or what it means, how can that be the "most valid" evidence? Accepted evidence is a product of a wide, if not universal, acceptance of all its details. That is not the case even within the broader Christian community. There is no single set of biblical evidence that is accepted universally. If fact, there is more disagreement than agreement. If those who claim to "believe the bible" do not agree on what it means, how can it be Universal evidence of anything?

Descendants of Abraham include Judaism, Islam and Christianity, thus there is no unique lineage here. All claim validation via "a unique religious heritage.

If contradiction of ones Dogmas is a sure sign of an invalid faith, then keep in mind that everything you believe is a contradiction to other Christians. So where is there validation in your dogma vs some other believers dogmas?

"A UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile)" is dead wrong and potentially racist. Jesus defined your neighbor as someone in need of your help, be they black, white, Muslim, Hindu, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon or atheist. Jesus used the example of a Samaritan, which to Jewish eyes were those practicing the ultimate false religion.

BS, your opinion that my statement "Both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality" is an undefended assumption is correct. This statement is a conclusion reached after defending it in the Apologetics thread. Please read it and then give me your new opinion either here or there. Thanks.
If you want to shorten this assignment, you can begin reading where I started over with axiomatic truth on p.19.

I agree that Christianity is a way of life, but if it has nothing to do with belief in God/aka theism, it is nothing more than a theory (1Cor. 15:19). Atheism is the opposite faith/theory.

Yes, Christians too often contradict one another, which is why I have made a concerted effort on CC urging folks to agree on the essential Gospel/Creed.

Yes, the NT is the most credible collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God that I have encountered.

If truth exists, then something must be more and most valid, even though it is believed by a minority (truthseekers).

Re "If those who claim to "believe the bible" do not agree on what it means, how can it be Universal evidence of anything?": You cite the reason Jesus and Paul prayed for unity. Sinful division is rampant.

"So where is there validation in your dogma vs some other believers dogmas?": At the end, on Judgment Day, when those who passed God's test go to heaven.

Yes, we should love everyone, including enemies, reflecting God's omnilove.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

You guys are missing my point.

I'm not arguing that Paul's letters contain an error about circumcision, nor am I arguing that Peter's later writings are wrong.

My point is much simpler: people are fallible.

Peter taught and behaved incorrectly regarding the Gentiles until he was corrected (Galatians 2; Acts 10–15). That demonstrates an important principle: even apostles were not above correction. Their teachings and actions were measured against what God had said.

My point isn't, "Paul/ Peter are wrong" like it's a point blank statement.

My point is, we don't begin with the assumption that a man's teaching is beyond examination simply because he is an apostle or because his teaching appears in the Bible. We compare every teaching with God's own words.

That's exactly what the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). They didn't accept Paul's teaching blindly...they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what he said was true.

So bringing up the fact that Peter was eventually corrected or later agreed with Paul actually supports my point. The correction happened because people can be corrected. If human teaching were beyond question, there would have been nothing to correct in the first place.

That's just behavior which God does fix as He did with Peter, but if they were inspired to write down what God wants them to for the future generations of His people, that is infallible. Plus we have the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, especially in the Bible

That's the amazing thing about God who chooses to work through fallible men.

 

[Delvianna]

Well, the Lord's quotes in the NT update and amend what was said in the OT (Heb. 7:11-10:1), so I begin by interpreting the OT in light of the NT. A biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible might well begin with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers.

Two NT teachings may be deemed key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements:

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice.

Do you want me to continue?

And how do you know any of that is Good? How do you know any of that is correct, when you have to check what God is saying? You're still checking what God is saying to humans. You can quote all the verses, the principle of your argument is the same. That you can't trust what God says, and you have to test it against something, which means you're testing it against humans. You literally said that you have to test God's own words. So if you can't trust God, who do you trust?

 

[GWH]

And how do you know any of that is Good? How do you know any of that is correct, when you have to check what God is saying? You're still checking what God is saying to humans. You can quote all the verses, the principle of your argument is the same. That you can't trust what God says, and you have to test it against something, which means you're testing it against humans. You literally said that you have to test God's own words. So if you can't trust God, who do you trust?

We don't "know" anything; we all walk by faith (2Cor. 5:7). After conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions, I concluded that any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God.

The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including Isa. 53 and Psa. 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as Heb. 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and Rom. 1:3-4).

Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per Matt. 22:37-39 & 5:44). I believe love is Good/God, and the best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (Rom. 3:28-30 & 4:9-16). We trust God, but there is no way to avoid humans.

What do you believe?

 

[rewriter]

I trust you are aware they were called ignorant and unlearned men. I did not say they were stupid. But I would not say I am of greater Knowledge of God than Paul because I have been to Seminary or have a degree. Nor what I think that of Peter too.

Of course they were called "unlearned" and "ignorant", they were from Galilee, so they were ignorant and unlearned by definition as were all Galileans.

 

[rewriter]

And how do you know any of that is Good? How do you know any of that is correct, when you have to check what God is saying? You're still checking what God is saying to humans. You can quote all the verses, the principle of your argument is the same. That you can't trust what God says, and you have to test it against something, which means you're testing it against humans. You literally said that you have to test God's own words. So if you can't trust God, who do you trust?

Well, scripture calls for two or three eyewitnesses that can be questioned by anyone, including nonbelievers, to determine what is true. It does not contain an exception for what someone chooses to call "God's word". So, my question to you would be do you choose to ignore scripture's requirements for knowing what is true or do you have two or three eyewitnesses who even nonbelievers may question to determine what is true in or about scripture? And if you have two or three eyewitnesses to consult, who or what are they?

 

[Lovette]

Bible "inerrancy" is the belief that everything in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is literally true and accurate about history, and related events without fault.

Bible infallibility is the belief that the bible is infallible as it reals to all things spiritual and is spiritually true

Three catches:

1. The bible is inerrant and infallible only in its ORIGINAL languages of Hebrew and Greek; all translations, including KJV, are errant and fallible. In fact, the more you study ancient Hebrew and Greek, the more inaccuracies and erroes you'll notice. In some cases there're subtle references beyond literal meaning, they don't make sense to modern minds unless you know the cultural and historical context.

2. The bible is sufficient but NOT exhaustive, stated by the bible itself - "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (Jn. 20-30-31) God has two revelations of himself, the special revelation through the bible, and the GENERAL revelation through all his creations. The bible is inspired by God for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction and righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16), but NOT for worship. You can know ABOUT God by studying the bible, as much as you can know ABOUT a celebrity by studying their biography, but only can you know God by personally experiencing him through his general revelation.

3.The bible is not a weapon for "prooftexting", it's not an intellectual armory for you to preach your own theories, to win debates by quoting more verses than your opponent. You can even draw certain verses to support socialism, abortion, slavery and genocide (such as the conquest of Canaan and Noah's Flood), that'd be taking the Lord's name in vain.

 

[Bible_Locket]

The DSS offer us the earliest existent forms of most of the OT. Clearly not all the documents found there are scripture, and I know of no one who makes such a claim. However, they can be valuable in gaining insights.

As for citing Codex Sinaiticus and various Codices and targums, among others as you cited, they, like different modern-day translations are known potential sources and can offer insights.

Now the question as to why the Jews in the late 1st century chose the Masoretic Text as the official version of the OT is a question that could make for a very interesting discussion, especially since Christianity later also adopted it, even though from among the DSS and the Septuagint, it has the fewest undisputable connections to the NT. The DSS are clearly cited as is the Septuagint, but the Masoretic appears only in places where it reads the same as one or both of the other two. And I would note that both Jubilees and Enoch appear to be cited in the NT.

I also trust that you are aware that both Barnabas and the Shepherd were among the works considered for inclusion in the approved NT, so their inclusion merely acknowledges that the final canon of the NT was still fluid at the time of the writing of Sinaiticus.

I suspect that you and I could have several enjoyable sessions over beverages of our choice while discussing scripture.

That may not be the case. Their post is generated by an AI.

 

[rewriter]

That may not be the case. Their post is generated by an AI.

That is possible, but I am not seeing any of the "tells" that I have learned indicate AI yet. But I also admit that online communication is not as trustworthy as face to face in these days of AI.

Fortunately, the demonic is limited in their ability to use online communication, it seems that it needs willing human assistance still, and their presence in the physical realm comes with many "tells" if one knows what to pay attention to. I suspect that more than one person in CC has misidentified an encounter with the demonic based on comments I have seen, but without the known "tells" being clearly apparent one cannot be certain. In a couple of such cases, I am led to wonder what is so special about the individual that it appears that the demonic made the effort that it seems to have done.

 

[Bible_Locket]

That is possible, but I am not seeing any of the "tells" that I have learned indicate AI yet. But I also admit that online communication is not as trustworthy as face to face in these days of AI.

Fortunately, the demonic is limited in their ability to use online communication, it seems that it needs willing human assistance still, and their presence in the physical realm comes with many "tells" if one knows what to pay attention to. I suspect that more than one person in CC has misidentified an encounter with the demonic based on comments I have seen, but without the known "tells" being clearly apparent one cannot be certain. In a couple of such cases, I am led to wonder what is so special about the individual that it appears that the demonic made the effort that it seems to have done.

I utilize AI from time to time. But I make a note of it too.

I excerpted a large part of their post. Then went to Google AI and asked it if the text was AI generated.

There's someone else here who posts what appear to be sermons. They use AI,also not credited,to compile those threads and posts.

I think it's the age we live in.
Kids in school today are basically raised on computers. They're awake and active in school more hours than at home.

I know parents whose kids can't spell without spell check assist. They can't do math in their head. They need a calculator.

So,it stands to reason they can't write a thread or post on any religious topic without AI.

 

[Delvianna]

Well, scripture calls for two or three eyewitnesses that can be questioned by anyone, including nonbelievers, to determine what is true. It does not contain an exception for what someone chooses to call "God's word". So, my question to you would be do you choose to ignore scripture's requirements for knowing what is true or do you have two or three eyewitnesses who even nonbelievers may question to determine what is true in or about scripture? And if you have two or three eyewitnesses to consult, who or what are they?

Thats truth for sin, not what scripture says is true, so you're taking that out of context.