Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

urroner

Which version of the Bible is most infallible?

Recommended Posts

Rhinomelon,

I am still trying to understand your point of view here, so would you indulge me a little more and explain one of the statements from my summary of the first article a bit further. It is this one:

(:P That faith to be faith must be beyond doubt or question and inerrancy is required to have faith.

Do you agree with this statement? If not, how would you correct it? If so, I have trouble understanding why faith must be beyond doubt or question. If it is beyond doubt or question doesn't it cease to be faith and become knowledge? So if the statement accords with what you believe, could you explain it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
The originals of the biblical manuscripts are inerrant

Which origionals?

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. No original manuscripts exist. Early Christians generally used the Greek Septuagint which contained many Apocryphal books not in the Protestant Bibles of today.

Share this post


Link to post
I vote for the New World Translation...since they attempted to have the most literal translation.
I hope you will research that MM. Definitely don't go there Urroner.

I wasn't being serious.

BTW MM, welcome to FAIR.

Thanks. :P

I met you on another forum not too long ago.

Not likely, since I have never posted on another board with this moniker. Unless, you find something familiar about my writing style or something.

Whew! Glad you were just kidding about the NWT. My mistake about meeting you on another forum. It was someone else.

Back to our regulary sheduled progamming. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I am bumping this because I would still like to learn about Rhinomelon's views on inerrancy and faith. So I will reiterate my post:

Rhinomelon,

I am still trying to understand your point of view here, so would you indulge me a little more and explain one of the statements from my summary of the first article a bit further. It is this one:

(:P That faith to be faith must be beyond doubt or question and inerrancy is required to have faith.

Do you agree with this statement? If not, how would you correct it? If so, I have trouble understanding why faith must be beyond doubt or question. If it is beyond doubt or question doesn't it cease to be faith and become knowledge? So if the statement accords with what you believe, could you explain it to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I give differing meanings of inerrant and infallible in this context. I believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. Because of translation and scribal errors I wouldn't call it inerrant in this context.

No translation can be called inerrant because men transcribed it, and proving something like the KJV isn';t inerrant is very simple, just look at a copy of the original 1611 version until today, and youc an see textual changes, and translation errors. The WORDS contained therein are infallible not the translation. A missplelling here, a reveresed pronoun there, read in context the Bible is the Bible, the same Bible people have read for nearly 1600 years. That's my honest take on it. The rest is semantics...

Share this post


Link to post

Yes I firmly beleive Gods word is innfallible. Every Jot and Tittle will be performed. But he has not preserved it so prestinely as some seem to beleive.

Now If we are to live by every word that comes from the Mouth of God and words have been removed... We need a little something more to guide us than the Bible alone.

Share this post


Link to post

Pantsman,

I guess I just presume that people who are commenting on a thread have read it.

Do you agree with the points from the article that Rhinomelon posted a link to? Which ones do you disagree with and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Now If we are to live by every word that comes from the Mouth of God and words have been removed... We need a little something more to guide us than the Bible alone.

Catholics are not Sola-Scriptura, so that argument really holds no value to a Catholic. Catholics hold God's word in his Bible and Sacred tradition passed down through Apostolic succession and the Saints to guide us in our faith. Protestants are Sola-Scriptura, as the only means of God's teaching (which I love asking them where does it say that in the Bible? Because Jesus himself used Sacred Tradition and oral tradition and wrote nothing down?)

As far as some words having been removed, we also believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and was present in canonizing scripture. In essence if it isn't in there, maybe God didn't want it to be?

But again I don't think that the canon is nearly as corrupted as many LDS believe, and I believe it is as how God wants it, and if we follow its recomendations, and other Church teachings we can inherit the kingdom of God.

I guess the real difference is LDS believe my Church to be a great apostate church, and since Catholics canonized the Bible, it makes sense that the Bible isn't given reverence by LDS. Catholics believe the Church never faded away, and while there will always be chaff amongst the wheat, we are Christs Church, and the Bible that was canonized is sufficient as God's word. No real reason to belabor the point. The differences will never not be there.

Bookworm,

I haven't read the article, I may need to read it tonight and get back to you, I am at work, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Pantsman,

I see now that you are Catholic, which means that you do not believe in the Bible the same way the Protestants do. Rhinomelon is Protestant and I was trying to understand the Protestant view of the Bible. I initially mistook you for a Protestant. I am sorry. Do not feel as though you are obligated to explain a Protestant article and its point of view.

Begging your pardon,

Bookworm

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Bookworm (great name, by the way, fits me well!), sorry about not getting back to you. I've been in a business meeting all day today, so I'm not sure I'll be able to give you anything substantive until tomorrow. I'll be thinking on it, though, and I will get back to you!

Take care :P

Share this post


Link to post
(<_< That faith to be faith must be beyond doubt or question and inerrancy is required to have faith.

Do you agree with this statement? If not, how would you correct it? If so, I have trouble understanding why faith must be beyond doubt or question. If it is beyond doubt or question doesn't it cease to be faith and become knowledge? So if the statement accords with what you believe, could you explain it to me.

I don't believe that the article used that terminology to discuss faith in general. This is the closest section I could find:

The Epistemological Argument

Because epistemologies differ, this argument has been formulated in at least two very different ways. For some, knowledge claims must, to be justified, be indubitable or incorrigible. It is not enough that a belief is true and is believed on good grounds. It must be beyond doubt and question. For such an epistemology inerrancy is essential. Inerrancy guarantees the incorrigibility of every statement of Scripture. Therefore, the contents of Scripture can be objects of knowledge.

As the article said, this is not one of the primary arguments used in making a case for inerrancy, as those would be theological and historical in nature. Notice that it also states that such certainty is demanded by "some" people, and not all. I don't believe that biblical inerrancy is absolutely necessary to have faith, nor do I believe that faith must be beyond question or doubt in order to be true faith.

All that being said, I would say that faith is only as good as the object or person that it is placed in. As the article points out, the belief in inerrancy is inextricably linked to belief about God. While I may have doubts, I do have faith the God that the Bible speaks of, and believe that this God is more than capable of preserving His message for all generations. Given the overwhelming (though not perfect, obviously) textual support, I have yet to see a compelling reason why any of my beliefs about God and His gospel should be changed.

Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't. Hope so! Take care :P

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...