Which version of the Bible is most infallible?

[rhinomelon]

Any Judge would allow it.

And then the judge would sustain the inevitable "hearsay" objection, because what is on trial is not Justin, but the biblical text. Since there is absolutely no textual evidence of this passage ever being in Isaiah or Jeremiah, and we both know the early church fathers were not perfect, there is no reason to assume that passage was ever in the Bible.

The Fact that 2 Infamous church fathers bring up the same charge even though they might disagree on where it was located, (The Jewish Cannon was in the process of being settled after all) ought to at least count for something. That is unless you are trying to tarnish their reputation?

"Infamous" church fathers? Nah, I wouldn't go nearly that far. But they obviously did not have all their facts straight. This is easily demonstrated. But why go to a secondary source to make you case, when you can go to the primary source (the biblical text) and answer your question? Probably because you don't like the answer.

And their statement does count for something. They both made mistakes, or misquoted something. This does not tarnish their reputation in any way whatsoever, unless you think they deserve the reputation of supermen who never ever make mistakes. You even consider them apostates!

Do you think that Justin or Irenaus would base a debate on such a precarious assumption and false accusation?

Yes. They did it other times, after all. Irenaeus blasted heretics because they didn't believe Jesus lived to old age before being crucified!

What is the law of the court room, "Reasonable doubt"?

Yes. And there is reasonable doubt as to the assumption that this particular passage was ever in the biblical text. You have two fallible (though very intelligent and godly) men on one side, and centuries of textual witness on the other.

Again, show me where this passage is found in any biblical manuscript, and I'll concede this whole argument.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Lets look at the complete quote of Justin:

The Testimony of Justin Martyr

Justin was a Gentile, born in Samaria near Jacob's well, and lived approximately A.D. 110 to 165, when he was martyred by decapitation at Rome, like the apostle Paul. In his "Dialogue with Trypho," a learned Jew, he makes some remarkable statements which need to be analyzed, as they pertain to the Septuagint and the alleged "missing verses" not found in the Jewish Masoretic text. Remember, the Jewish rabbis had by this time rejected the Septuagint from the synagogues, and had replaced it with their own new Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures. But, Justin says in his dialogue, they had left off many of the Scriptural verses which had previously been used to prove Jesus was the Christ!

Justin, speaking to Trypho, declares:

"'But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the

interpretation made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the

Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to FRAME ANOTHER. And I wish

you to observe, that they have ALTOGETHER TAKEN AWAY MANY SCRIP-

TURES from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with

Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is PROVED to have been

set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since

I am aware that this is DENIED by all of your nation, I do not address myself

to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages

which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before

your attention except that you contradict the statement, "Behold, the virgin shall

conceive," and say it ought to be read, "Behold, the young woman shall conceive."

And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to

Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.'

"Here Trypho remarked, 'We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures

which you allege have been completely canceled."

"And I said, 'I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras

made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following:

"And Esdras [Ezra] said to the people, This passover is our Saviour

and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken

it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in

Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the Lord of

hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His

declaration, you shall be a laughingstock to the nations." And from the

sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: "I [was] like a lamb that is

brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying,

Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from

the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered."

And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies

[of the Scriptures] IN THE SYNAGOGUES OF THE JEWS (for it is only a short time

since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews

deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both

declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves

over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been

cut out: '"The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay

in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."

"'And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying

of the words of David: "From the wood." For when the passage said, "Tell ye among

the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood," they have left, "Tell ye among the

nations, The Lord hath reigned." Now no one of your people has ever been said to have

reigned as God and Lord among the nations, with the exception of Him only who was

crucified, of whom also the Holy Spirit affirms in the same Psalm that He was raised

again, and freed from [the grave], declaring that there is none like Him among the gods

of the nations; for they are idols of demons. But I shall repeat the whole Psalm to you,

that you may perceive what has been said. It is thus: "Sing unto the Lord a new song;

sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His

salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all

people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all the

gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him; tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fulness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth."'

"Here Trypho remarked, 'Whether [or not] the rulers of the people have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible.'

"'Assuredly,' said I, 'it does seem incredible. For it is MORE HORRIBLE THAN THE

CALF WHICH THEY MADE, when satisfied with manna on the earth; or than the

sacrifice of children to demons; or than the slaying of the prophets. But,' said I, 'you appear not to have heard the Scriptures which I said they had STOLEN AWAY. For such as have been quoted are more than enough to prove the points in dispute, besides those which are still retained by us, and shall yet be brought forward" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.1, "Dialogue with Trypho, LXXI-LXXIII).

I have quoted this long passage from Justin Martyr, from his "Dialogue with Trypho," because it not only verifies the fact that the Rabbis of that time were not only endorsing a new rival translation of the Old Testament Scriptures into Greek, but that they had deliberately excised certain Messianic passages which had been in the original Hebrew Scriptures, and which had been translated into the Septuagint in the centuries before Christ. It seems incredible that he would lie about such a thing, since a lie on such a matter could have been easily disproved at that time by his opponents. And his Jewish antagonist, Trypho, never challenged him on his sensatioal remarks. If Justin Martyr is to be believed -- and there seems to be no reason to doubt him on this matter -- then truly the Jews not only rejected Christ, but their leaders were perverse and despicable in so doing, altering the very Scriptures to weaken the claims of Christians.

http://www.triumphpro.com/a_new_look_at_th..._septuagint.htm

NOTE: Please note that there Justin claims there where "manuscripts Extant when he made the claim. So it would all depend on when the Court case took place.

So lets recap so we know what we are looking for:

<Looking for Reference>

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive,"

vs

"Behold, the young woman shall conceive."

Ezra

"And Esdras [Ezra] said to the people, This passover is our Saviour

and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken

it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in

Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the Lord of

hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His

declaration, you shall be a laughingstock to the nations."

Jeremiah

"I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered."

and

'"The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay

in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation."

Pslams 95 (96?)

"'And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: "From the wood."

For when the passage said,

"Tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned from the wood,"

they have left, "Tell ye among the nations, The Lord hath reigned."

"Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, and bless His name; show forth His salvation from day to day. Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all people. For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens. Confession and beauty are in His presence; holiness and magnificence are in His sanctuary. Bring to the Lord, O ye countries of the nations, bring to the Lord glory and honour, bring to the Lord glory in His name. Take sacrifices, and go into His courts; worship the Lord in His holy temple. Let the whole earth be moved before Him; tell ye among the nations, the Lord hath reigned. For He hath established the world, which shall not be moved; He shall judge the nations with equity. Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and its fulness shake. Let the fields and all therein be joyful. Let all the trees of the wood be glad before the Lord: for He comes, for He comes to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth."'

So here we go...

[Zakuska]

Pslams 96

Verse 10. Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth ] Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, quotes this passage thus: eipate en toiv eqnesi, o kuriov ebasileuse apo tou xulou, "Say among the nations, the Lord ruleth by the wood," meaning the cross; and accuses the Jews of having blotted this word out of their Bibles, because of the evidence it gave of the truth of Christianity. It appears that this reading did exist anciently in the Septuagint, or at least in some ancient copies of that work, for the reading has been quoted by Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius, Augustine, Cassiodourus, Pope Leo, Gregory of Tours, and others. The reading is still extant in the ancient Roman Psalter, Dominus regnavit a ligno, and in some others. In an ancient MS. copy of the Psalter before me, while the text exhibits the commonly received reading, the margin has the following gloss: Regnavit a ligno crucis, "The Lord reigns by the wood of the cross." My old Scotico-Latin Psalter has not a ligno in the text, but seems to refer to it in the paraphrase: "For Criste regned efter the dede on the crosse". It is necessary, however, to add, that no such words exist in any copy of the Hebrew text now extant, nor in any MS.

So now Tell me Rhino... Are all these Christian fathers wrong as well?

Yes it seams to have been removed quite thoroughly.

[brugsch]

Rhinomelon,

A textual witness is any manuscript of a text or quotation of a text. That is simply basic textual criticism.

Justin Martyr's quotation is a textual witness just as any manuscript. It needs no corroborating manuscript in order to be a textual witness.

You disagree with Justin Martyr's witness on this point, but your argument does not invalidate his witness. Your argument on generalities (he is wrong on some points) does not necessarily apply to particulars (he is wrong on this point) unless it is completely general (he is wrong on all points).

Justin is earlier than any Septuagint manuscript for this passage (Psalms 96:10). Only one of the Dead Sea Scrolls covers Psalm 96 (1Q10) but it breaks off in verse 2. The earliest Septuagint manuscript is P. Bodmer XXIV, which is end of the III century or IV century. So Justin is the earliest textual witness to the passage, and is 850 years before the earliest Hebrew manuscript for the passage.

Theophilus,

Do you still want to try to defend the editors of UBS 4 in tampering with the text of Galatians 5:19? Or are you hoping that we have forgotten it?

Do you still want to try to defend your reading of Matthew 19:9 with an actual manuscript witness?

[rhinomelon]

So now Tell me Rhino... Are all these Christian fathers wrong as well?

Yes it seams to have been removed quite thoroughly.

Not so thoroughly as to remove any hint of it, however. This is a different quote than the one you originally started out with, but whatever.

I wouldn't say these Christian fathers are wrong, by the way. Obviously other manuscripts back them up.

Brugsch, the other passages Zakuska brought up were not being discussed; only the one attributed to Isaiah or Jeremiah was. There are earlier manuscripts of both writers that are quite earlier, and none of them have any reference to the passage Justin cites. I agree that he is a textual witness, but in the absence of evidence for the prior existence of this passage, one could just as easily say that Justin was the originator of that passage, and that theory would also fit all the facts.

But what are you trying to argue? I don't believe that "inerrancy" means "pure, uncorrupted text". I have no doubt that there are inaccuracies and variants. It is a human book after all. The message is the most important thing, not the letters of various words.

Take care, everyone

[T-Shirt]

You are making the assumption they are non-inspired without evidence, unless you happen to have the missing prophets' writings in your den.

I am making no such "assumption", of course, and I reject your attempts to try to shift the burden of proof onto me. The original assertion is that these books are "inspired", and should therefore "be included in the Bible. I take no position on whether they are inspired or not, since I do not know, and I reject either assumption (that they are inspired, or that they aren't), until proof can be given.

So, you take no position one way or another, is that correct?

Can you then explain what you meant by your next statement?

If they can be proved to be "inspired", then they belong in the Bible.

LDS have not yet demonstated that they are "inspired", that they should be in the Bible.

Wouldn't believing that they belong in the Bible, if they are inspired, be the same as saying, "since they are not in the Bible, the are not inspired"?

It seems to me that by your own statement, you have, indeed, taken a position, the position that they could not have been inspired, otherwise they would be in the Bible. It is no wonder that you go to such great lengths to not recognize them as inspired. If they were, of course, your whole Biblical belief would come crashing down.

By the way, it helps to actually present some form of evidence when debating a topic. Repeated rejections and sighs do not constitute a very strong argument.

T-Shirt

[Zakuska]

I went to the Pslam becuase it was not in my original post of the quoting of Justin. It was also alot easier to verify.

Now wait a minute... is it just me or did the target get raised once again?

Now you are redifining Innerrancy in the middle of the discussion?

And what about Theophulis and the Lord preserving every Jot and Tittle?

With out the words on the page where even one letter in the original can through you off a thousand degrees, when you travel long enough, Id say its is very important.

Also... the original objection was about the Bible not been changed and especially not for theological/doctrinal reason and has been preserved unchanged and unaltered by the hands of men because God preserved it just as prestine and perfect as the day he wrote it.

(Yes that may be over stating it a bit)

The truth of the matter is... the Bible has been changed and for theological reasons, Several times over. Unlike what every inerrantist I've ever met has claimed. Take Theophilus for example. The Bible is 99.9999% accurate? Would you agree?

[rhinomelon]

Now wait a minute... is it just me or did the target get raised once again?  

Now you are redifining Innerrancy in the middle of the discussion?

Not at all. Apparently you never bothered to try to understand how I viewed inerrancy. I think you thought I was some kind of "KJV only, dictated straight by God and hand delivered in English" kind of person. Sorry to disappoint.

The truth of the matter is... the Bible has been changed and for theological reasons, Several times over. Unlike what every inerrantist I've ever met has claimed. Take Theophilus for example. The Bible is 99.9999% accurate? Would you agree?

No I would not, although I believe that the common LDS argument that it is impossible to know what the originals said is nonsense. And apparently you haven't met many "inerrantists". "Inerrancy" is most often attributed to the original autographs, not their many copies. And for many people, spellings of certain words and such don't affect the message, which is by far the important thing. There are many "inerrantists" who are quite familiar with the many thousands of variants in the texts, and are still comfortable in referring to the Bible as "inerrant" in terms of message, truth, doctrine, etc.

This might be a good link for you to check out. It describes a closer view to my own than the one you seem to attribute to me:

Inerrancy of the Bible

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

No I would not, although I believe that the common LDS argument that it is impossible to know what the originals said is nonsense.

Not really since the argument is from silence and since we have no original manuscripts to compare. Isn't that the same argument you used for Jeremiah. Since I could not produce a manuscript.

And apparently you haven't met many "inerrantists".

May very well be true, since all I have to go by is the Hankhanegraph (sp), Richard Abanes, Theophilus, The Baptist who blanket our neigborhood every year with Anti-Material full of biblical quotes about how God will preserve every JOT and TITTLE.

"Inerrancy" is most often attributed to the original autographs, not their many copies. And for many people, spellings of certain words and such don't affect the message, which is by far the important thing. There are mai "inerrantists" who are quite familiar with the many thousands of variants in the texts, and are still comfortable in referring to the Bible as "inerrant" in terms of message, truth, doctrine, etc.

I Would agree in principle, to the central message that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. However, Doctrine, now thats a different story because that is completely subjective to interpretation of the text. Otherwise there would not be so many denominations.

[Bookworm]

Rhinomelon,

The article you point to seems to argue

(1) That the original biblical texts are inerrant but none of them have survived.

(2) That inerrancy itself is not biblical and is not taught explicitly in the Bible.

(3) That the doctrine of inerrancy will not measure up to modern standards.

(4) That one must simply believe that modern textual criticism brings the text close to the originals but there is no way to prove it.

(5) That though the texts are inerrant, the translations are not.

(6) That inerrancy is not demonstrable.

(7) That no copy or version of the Bible is inerrant.

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

(9) That without textual inerrancy, Protestantism has no authority.

So the answer to the original question about which Bible is infallible is that none of them are.

The article argues for a theoretical inerrancy which is both affirmed and denied in practice. It is denied that any attempt to nail down the inerrant wording or meaning of the text can recover the inerrant meaning and it is affirmed that the text must be inerrant or Protestantism is false.

How close does this come to your understanding of inerrancy?

[rhinomelon]

So the answer to the original question about which Bible is infallible is that none of them are.

I believe that's what many people have already said, including myself. The nature of translation almost demolishes any standard of perfection; languages are too complex for that.

I don't see where the authority of Protestantism is ever brought into the picture in the article.

More later. Take care

[Bookworm]

From the article:

The question of authority is central for any theology. Since Protestant theology has located authority in the Bible, the nature of biblical authority has been a fundamental concern. The Reformation passed to its heirs the belief that ultimate authority rests not in reason or a pope, but in an inspired Scripture.

and

the Bible's authority, . . . can only be justified by or grounded in inerrancy.

Without a continuous chain of authority, like the Catholics or Orthodox, or revelation from God, like the Church of Jesus Christ, Protestants have to have an infallible Bible in order to ground their authority. Is that correct?

[Zakuska]

And since the scripture that we have is fallible, because we have no autographs then ultimately, Protestanism has no Authority. Or is bassed on a non-existant thing.

Talk about your Ex Nihilo! They've conjured their Authority out of thin air!

[rhinomelon]

Without a continuous chain of authority, like the Catholics or Orthodox, or revelation from God, like the Church of Jesus Christ, Protestants have to have an infallible Bible in order to ground their authority. Is that correct?

Ah, gotcha. I didn't catch those statements when I skimmed through the article before. Yes, Protestants ground their authority primarily in the Scriptures, through which the Holy Spirit works. This would require a Bible that is trustworthy, obviously.

1) That the original biblical texts are inerrant but none of them have survived.

(2) That inerrancy itself is not biblical and is not taught explicitly in the Bible.

(3) That the doctrine of inerrancy will not measure up to modern standards.

(4) That one must simply believe that modern textual criticism brings the text close to the originals but there is no way to prove it.

(5) That though the texts are inerrant, the translations are not.

(6) That inerrancy is not demonstrable.

(7) That no copy or version of the Bible is inerrant.

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

(9) That without textual inerrancy, Protestantism has no authority.

Regarding the above list, I would say it is a pretty accurate summary of the article. The concept of inerrancy must obviously involved faith, because it posits the existence of God, and certain aspects of God's character as well. Even those people with the autographs had to exercise faith in their message. I would also not say that inerrancy is not biblical, as that implies it contradicts the Bible; the second half of that statement is more accurate. It is not explicitly taught, but it is a logical consequence of certain things that are explicity taught. And while I believe complete inerrancy (perfection in a textual sense) is not demonstrable, textual criticism can get us quite close to the text of the original autographs.

Perhaps that helps you a bit. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

And since the scripture that we have is fallible, because we have no autographs then ultimately, Protestanism has no Authority. Or is bassed on a non-existant thing.

Talk about your Ex Nihilo! They've conjured their Authority out of thin air! 

Whoa! Slow down there, before you blow a head gasket! I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself...

Textual perfection is not a prerequisite for Protestant views of authority.

Take care

[Zakuska]

Ok... so lets get the check list.

Ah, gotcha. I didn't catch those statements when I skimmed through the article before. Yes, Protestants ground their authority primarily in the Scriptures, through which the Holy Spirit works. This would require a Bible that is trustworthy, obviously.

1) Bible

2) Spirit

Is the Bible the only thing through which the spirit works?

Seems to me Paul tells us that it also comes by those who come preaching, and they don't necessarily come preaching the Bible. But the word that God has given them to preach.

The Bible also tells us that Living beings are what possess Authority not scripture.

Textual perfection is not a prerequisite for Protestant views of authority.

If there isnt textual perfection how can anyone claim Inffalibility? And there by lay claim to any authority what so ever?

[Bookworm]

I am trying to understand your point of view since you have said that several people here have not. I meant by not biblical that inerrancy was not found in the Bible not that it necessarily contradicts the Bible. Heliocentric astronomy and Einsteinian physics are not biblical but that says nothing about whether they are true or contradict the Bible. I am sorry if I unintentionally gave the wrong impression.

I am interested in how theoretical inerrancy translates into practice. Earlier I wrote:

The article argues for a theoretical inerrancy which is both affirmed and denied in practice. It is denied that any attempt to nail down the inerrant wording or meaning of the text can recover the inerrant meaning and it is affirmed that the text must be inerrant or Protestantism is false.

Did I characterize that accurately?

[rhinomelon]

Is the Bible the only thing through which the spirit works?

Seems to me Paul tells us that it also comes by those who come preaching, and they don't necessarily come preaching the Bible. But the word that God has given them to preach.

Definitely not. The Holy Spirit can work through many different ways, including preaching. I would even go as far as to say that the Bible as a book is pointless unless it is preached and read. The Bible (as a book) is not the most important thing; rather, it is the message that the Bible contains that is vital and indispensable.

The Bible also tells us that Living beings are what possess Authority not scripture.

Reference?

Also, I would agree that the Bible grants authority to living beings. But those living beings also acknowledged the authority of the written word. Jesus and the apostles all used it extensively, after all, and they were all tested by it.

If there isnt textual perfection how can anyone claim Inffalibility? And there by lay claim to any authority what so ever?

I don't really like the word "infallible"; I prefer "inerrant". That being said, what is the difference between these two sentences?

"Rhinomelon has a dog."

"Rhinomellon has a dog."

Did you misunderstand either of them because there was a variant in the text?

I am sorry if I unintentionally gave the wrong impression.

No apology necessary; I was just clarifying, and I apologize if I sounded defensive. You were not offensive in the slightest!

I am interested in how theoretical inerrancy translates into practice. Earlier I wrote:

QUOTE 

The article argues for a theoretical inerrancy which is both affirmed and denied in practice. It is denied that any attempt to nail down the inerrant wording or meaning of the text can recover the inerrant meaning and it is affirmed that the text must be inerrant or Protestantism is false.

Did I characterize that accurately?

I might have to chew on it a bit more, but I wouldn't say that recovering the inerrant meaning of a text is seen as impossible. After all, that is the whole point of theology and studying the Scripture! I would also not say that the text is inerrant (completely free from error), as it obviously is not. I would say that the Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms as truth; the exact reproduction of the text is not necessarily an issue when looked at in this light. See my example above. While one of those sentences is obviously "wrong", textually speaking, it does affirm that rhinomelon has a dog, which is the purpose and meaning of the sentence.

But then that gets to the trustworthiness of the writer/author of the message. This is something that the Bible does affirm explicitly, that God does not lie, and that God does not err. God also inspires Scripture, and wants all men to hear the gospel.

This is where faith always enters the picture. My statement that "rhinomelon has a dog" is, in reality, factually incorrect. I don't have a dog, much as I really want a big one. Since that doesn't line up with reality, I wouldn't put much faith in me...

Take care, everyone

[brugsch]

Rhinomelon,

How does your theory about it being possible to discover the original text translate into practice?

Perhaps you would like to take a crack at Galatians 5:19, which Theophilus has been avoiding. Should the word "adultery" be in the text? If not, why not? If so, why did the UBS editorial committee drop the word, which appears in most of the manuscripts, without indicating that any of the manuscripts included it.?

[Zakuska]

Reference?

Sure... see below.

Also, I would agree that the Bible grants authority to living beings. But those living beings also acknowledged the authority of the written word. Jesus and the apostles all used it extensively, after all, and they were all tested by it.

But they also stepped above it on more than one occasions... eg. Sermon on the Mount, Hebrews - Changing all the animal sacrifice, which where supposeted to be perpetually forever, and the priesthood etc.

The Scribes taught as modern preachers do. By quoting scripture and only scripture word for word not daring to go one JOT or TITTLE beyond. But Christ and his Apostles taught by going above and beyond mere scripture and words in a book. Because they taught with power and truth as ones having Authority.

Matt 7

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

The Apostle and even Christ also quoted from authoritative writtings of other to grant Authority to the new teachings they where bringing. The spoken word was always more Authoritative. The Reason they used the scriptures was because the people to who they where teaching held them as Authoritative. So when they expounded the scriptures and went above and beyond their authority was already established

In todays church since the Bible is placed as the Ultimate Authority there is no going above and beyond and the spirit is essentially dead. Muddled out and killed by letters and symantec games in a book.

If there isnt textual perfection how can anyone claim Inffalibility? And there by lay claim to any authority what so ever?

I don't really like the word "infallible"; I prefer "inerrant". That being said, what is the difference between these two sentences?

"Rhinomelon has a dog."

"Rhinomellon has a dog."

Did you misunderstand either of them because there was a variant in the text?

I see no difference.

But thats not what we are talking about.

Its More Like,

"Rhinomelon has a dog."

"Rhinomelon has a cat the eats dogs."

We are talking about whole sentences being removed. Even whole books. Here's a new one I learned about.

1 Chronicles ends mid sentence.

1. Two last verses of Chronicles. Three first verses of Ezra.

"The last verse in Chronicles is broken abruptly, and ends in the middle of a phrase, with the word up, without signifying to what place. This abrupt break, and the appearance of the same verses, in different books, show the disorder and ignorance in which the Bible has been put together, and that the compilers of it had no authority for what they were doing, nor we any authority for believing what they have done." -Thomas Paine

[rhinomelon]

How does your theory about it being possible to discover the original text translate into practice?

Discovering the exact text is a secondary issue. Discovering the original meaning and message is primary. The two are not necessarily the same. For instance, in your example, Galatians 5:19. I haven't been paying much attention to that stream of thought in this thread, but to me it is a secondary issue. There are plenty of other passages in the Scriptures that condemn adultery, passages that are not beset by multiple variants. Whether it is in that passage or not, the biblical message on adultery is pretty clear.

Again, textual perfection is not required, but accurate transmission of the message is.

Good questions, by the way. This is an area I haven't really dug into that much, so I'm having to think quite a bit on these! Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

The Apostle and even Christ also quoted from authoritative writtings of other to grant Authority to the new teachings they where bringing. The spoken word was always more Authoritative. The Reason they used the scriptures was because the people to who they where teaching held them as Authoritative. So when they expounded the scriptures and went above and beyond their authority was already established

But the apostles were also servants of the message, and they placed it above themselves. Paul refers to himself as a servant of the gospel many times. Also, he writes in Galatians that even if he or the other apostles came to them and preached another gospel, they should be condemned.

In todays church since the Bible is placed as the Ultimate Authority there is no going above and beyond and the spirit is essentially dead. Muddled out and killed by letters and symantec games in a book.

Unless you've spent a great deal of time in "today's church", I don't see your view of mainstream Christianity as particularly true or realistic. From my experiences in churches all over the world, I see the Holy Spirit as incredibly active! Also, you are once again trying to cram Christians into the hyper-conservative mold, saying that we can't go beyond the Bible in any way. This is obviously not the case. We deal with issues today that never crossed the minds of the early Church, and it is necessary to go beyond the words of the Bible in order to apply biblical principles and doctrines to our Christian lives today. This process is also guided by the Holy Spirit.

Expand your view, and you might get what I'm saying. The Holy Spirit is far from dead.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Again... All I have to go on is what Ive heard from others. Who Either have left the Christian faith... or who have left Mormonism and write books against it with long lists of out of context Bible verses. So the box Im "craming" you into is the box they have painted for it. Im sorry If I come across as telling you what you beleive. But now you know where Im coming from.

I think I need to take the Advice of how wide the Divide and work with the current manifestations.

[rhinomelon]

I would recommend simply searching for biblical inerrancy online, through Google or something. You get a variety of perspectives that way, instead of relying on the people who come to you wanting to cram something down your throat.

I've always found Google to be helpful in terms of exploring different positions on things.

These articles should be short and informative: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=biblical+inerrancy

Enjoy!

EDIT: Also try the wikipedia article on the subject, and look at the links referenced at the bottom of the article. I've found some real goodies in other articles down at the bottom.

[rhinomelon]

I think I need to take the Advice of how wide the Divide and work with the current manifestations. 

Any thoughts on the current manifestations? Just curious...