Why argue the bible is infallible?

[Jane_Doe]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Well, that was a conversation on a fast track to nowhere.  There is a vast difference between conversing about a given topic and showing up to tell everyone else how wrong they are based on a script and without any effort to engage.

I do think some people here (including the OP) are making a strong effort to understand both sides.  

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Pius XII blamed the Reformation for getting it wrong, "when many of the Christian family separated themselves from the infallible teaching of the church."  Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, 461, online at http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/_extra authors/Johnson, Paul/A History Of Christianity.pdf .

Yes exactly- so of course they do believe in infallibility basically in their doctrine which is a combination of both the bible and tradition

But there is an odd escape clause added to that- not many Catholics even are aware of "sensus fidelium" which is also included in the formula for "infallibility" which is a proxy as I see it for our open canon.  To me it has always been an odd notion that here you have infallibility on one hand and what is pragmatically an open canon combined.

 

Quote

 

Views of laity alone[edit]

The Second Vatican Council made it clear that sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) does not mean sensus laicorum (sense of the lay people), as if it were a charismgranted to the laity in isolation from the Catholic Church hierarchy, and as if the clergy were not included among "the faithful".^[5] It stated:

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.^[6]

It declared that Christ fulfils his prophetic office "not only through the hierarchy who teach in His name and with His authority, but also through the laity whom He made His witnesses and to whom He gave understanding of the faith [sensus fidei] and an attractiveness in speech so that the power of the Gospel might shine forth in their daily social and family life.^[7]

Independent of Church magisterium[edit]

In a speech to the International Theological Commission on 7 December 2012, Pope Benedict XVI distinguished between the authentic meaning of sensus fidei and a counterfeit understanding: "It is certainly not a kind of public ecclesial opinion, and invoking it in order to contest the teachings of the Magisterium would be unthinkable, since the sensus fidei cannot be authentically developed in believers, except to the extent in which they fully participate in the life of the Church, and this demands responsible adherence to the Magisterium, to the deposit of faith.^[8]

This distinction was expressed also by the Second Vatican Council in the passage quoted above, in which it states that the discernment of the faithful in matters of faith and morals "is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God".^[6]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium

And this has even affected the discussion about ordaining women to the Priesthood etc- what was unthinkable at one point is now at least discussed.

I look at the logic behind systematic beliefs- and see this has a huge loophole to "infallibility" when that includes all that the faithful might consider as doctrinal in the future.

Edited October 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Hello Friends,

I used to believe the whole "as long as it's translated correctly" concept, but what am I really saying about the Word of God and, more importantly, about Heavenly Father and His capabilities.

Think about it, if I can believe God could create the universe with His words, deliver His people by parting the Red Sea, feeding them with manna from heaven and water from a rock, raise the dead, walk on water, close the mouths of lions, survive a fiery furnace, feed thousands from a few fishes, etc..

So, if I can believe all of these miracles, why could I not believe he would preserve His word?

In Psalm 12, God promises us that He will preserve His word for us:

  Psalms 12:6-7   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.   

I have been trained in what are valid arguments and what are not valid arguments

You may be totally correct that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God but this happens to be a bad argument for that position.  Essentially your argument is "The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is"

Such an argument does not work at all for someone who does not already believe the Bible is infallible.   It is what is called a "circular argument" or "begging the question"

Any group of people could allege that any writing is the Word of God because the volume itself says it is, if the work is fictional or not.  There are many historical novels which use "real" place names and even real events in telling a fictional story- perhaps about the civil war, etc.

So though you may be right, the argument is not effective.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

With respect to Bluebell's intent within this post, I believe the King James Bible is Heavenly Father's perfect, infallible, pure Words.

I missed this when I made my post.

For my amusement....sorry.....I meant my enlightenment can you explain why King James committee was vouchsafed the word of God and not the earlier translators or Greek or Hebrew versions?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

......................................

Quote

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people's supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.[6]

.......................................................

That reminds me of Mosiah 29:26, "it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right"

[mrmarklin]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Where is the teaching found that says that the bible is infallible?  I've always wondered where that idea comes from.

Not just the Bible. KJV is the inerrancy of choice. 

[Meerkat]

21 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

In Psalm 12, God promises us that He will preserve His word for us:

  Psalms 12:6-7   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.   

This makes sense.  The trick is finding the translation that can't be twisted to support baptism by immersion, sprinkling, infant baptism, no baptism, God is a Spirit, God is an exalted man, God is without body, parts or passions, God is one, God is three in one, God is incomprehensible, This is life eternal, to know God and Jesus Christ,  7th Day Sabbath, 1st Day Sabbath, etc.  It's not that the words aren't pure, reading without meekness and humility enough to consistently interpret God's intention is near impossible for fallen man to do.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Meerkat

[Benjamin McGuire]

If you like the question of infallibility of the text, and the implications this has more generally for reading and interpretation, you might enjoy this book:

https://www.amazon.com/There-Meaning-This-Text-Scholarship/dp/0310324696

I got interested in it through a review by Hugh Pyper, who ended his review with this comment

Quote

The interested reader cannot fail to profit from V.'s scholarship while being provoked to argument at every turn.

This description caught my attention. So I bought the book, read it, and argued with it's author at every turn. Of course, it might be helpful to start with more than a passing awareness of speech-act theory, but even without that, it is a book I recommend.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

One cannot present the "true" words of GOD unless what one is writing is without error. Revelation 19:9 - John claimed "These are true words of God".  

Why?

[stemelbow]

I can't start a thread, but I am curious...for the LDS here who are wondering about infallibility of the scriptures, what, in the scriptures, would you say is wrong teaching found in scripture? 

I can't buy infallibility.  I find the reasoning strained.  But I dont' know that LDS typically view scripture much differently than their brothers and sisters who accept the notion of infallibility.  I'm guessing some LDS here have parts of the BoM that they find problematic in terms of teaching and doctrine.  But I doubt most active LDS have such a view.

[pogi]

20 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

Hello Friends,

I used to believe the whole "as long as it's translated correctly" concept, but what am I really saying about the Word of God and, more importantly, about Heavenly Father and His capabilities.

Think about it, if I can believe God could create the universe with His words, deliver His people by parting the Red Sea, feeding them with manna from heaven and water from a rock, raise the dead, walk on water, close the mouths of lions, survive a fiery furnace, feed thousands from a few fishes, etc..

So, if I can believe all of these miracles, why could I not believe he would preserve His word?

In Psalm 12, God promises us that He will preserve His word for us:

  Psalms 12:6-7   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.   

19 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

With respect to Bluebell's intent within this post, I believe the King James Bible is Heavenly Father's perfect, infallible, pure Words.

I do not believe the text or the doctrines within have somehow been copiously mistranslated and in need of new revelation to restore truth. 

First, can you explain to me how the King James Bible could be "perfect" and "pure" as a translation?  I think a linguist would argue that there is no such thing as a "perfect" translation, rather they are considered "adequate".   "Adequate" is not "perfect", it is an approximation only.   Anything other than the original language would be a corruption, right?  Well, the KJV is a translation of late Greek manuscripts, yet Jesus would have likely given his sermons in Aramaic.  That means the KJV is a translation of a translation.  What is the original language of God anyway?  Greek? Aramaic?  I would argue that God's language and God's Word is Spirit.  The Word is God.  In that regard Psalms 12 is absolutely accurate, God's Word will be preserved from generation to generation - not in the form of the human tongue written on tablets of stone, but in the form of spirit which written on the fleshy tablets of our hearts.

Second, if the KJV is perfect and pure and has always been preserved that way, why have there been several revisions?  http://margmowczko.com/7-things-about-the-king-james-bible/

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't start a thread, but I am curious...for the LDS here who are wondering about infallibility of the scriptures, what, in the scriptures, would you say is wrong teaching found in scripture? 

I can't buy infallibility.  I find the reasoning strained.  But I dont' know that LDS typically view scripture much differently than their brothers and sisters who accept the notion of infallibility.  I'm guessing some LDS here have parts of the BoM that they find problematic in terms of teaching and doctrine.  But I doubt most active LDS have such a view.

Jeff Lindsay has a good collection of some of the errors found in the bible (he was asked a question concerning biblical infallibility and this was his answer.  That's why it only deals with that set of scriptures).  

He says-

"There is no question that some parts of the text have been corrupted. Of the thousands of early Greek and Hebrews manuscripts and fragments that scholars have to work with, there are many small and some serious differences that make it impossible to propose one single, standard text that one might hope to be free from errors. In fact, Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, two non-LDS writers, say that there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts or fragments to work with, containing roughly 250,000 variants among them. They say that "it would be difficult to find a sentence, even part of a sentence, for which the rendering is consistent in every single manuscript. That certainly gives plenty of food for thought." (Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Initiation a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament [An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism], translated by J. Heimerdinger, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p.2, as cited by Kerry A. Shirts, Journal of Mormon Apologetics, Vol. 1, 1999, p. 94.)

Some of the errors are obvious and can be found by an inspection of the Bible alone. Many such problems are discussed by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe in their excellent book, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992). Though written from a faithful Protestant perspective to support the Bible, Geisler and Howe regularly acknowledge that some minor problems and contradictions are due to copyist errors. For example, 1 Kings 4:26 says Solomon had 40,000 stalls when 2 Chronicles 9:25 says he had 4,000. "This is undoubtedly a copyist error" (p. 181). That particular problem is one of many examples of problematic large numbers in the Hebrew text. In 1 Samuel 13:1, a word is missing in the Hebrew (Geisler and Howe, p. 159). The first phrase of that verse literally says that "Saul was the son of ... years when he became king." Translators must fill in the missing word with a numerical estimate, resulting in many contradictions among translations (NKJV gives "one year", NASB gives "forty", and the NIV gives "thirty"). A verse with a word missing shows that the Biblical text cannot be utterly infallible with no missing or corrupted elements. But this is only one of many problems.

Some problems may be minor errors due to translation problems, such as Leviticus 11:20, which speaks of "fowls that creep, going upon all four" (KJV - some other translations offer "insects" instead of "fowls," which makes more sense in the context but still seems biologically puzzling). Listing a bat as a "bird" and a hare as a cud chewer in Deut 14 (verses 7 and 18, respectively) also raises arguably trivial questions about biological accuracy (though it's even more serious than the apparent biological errors anti-Mormons mock in the Book of Mormon).

Further, there are many examples of contradictions within the Bible, though they are usually of minor or non-doctrinal importance, such as the numerical contradiction mentioned above. Other examples of contradictions include I Chron. 21:5 and 2 Samuel 24:9; 2 Sam. 10:8 and 1 Chron. 19:18; 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9; Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and 2 Chron. 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26. Some of these are so plain that even defenders of Biblical inerrancy must at least admit the likelihood of copyist errors (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p. 199, comparing 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9 where Jehoiachin's age when he began to reign is given as 18 and 8 years, respectively).

Some errors in the Biblical appear to be simple, easily understood accidents, such as Matthew misattributing a quote from Zechariah (Zech. 11:12-13) to Jeremiah in Matt. 27: 9-10. Others are harder to resolve, though generally still minor, such as the apparent contradiction between Mark 6:8, Luke 9:3, and Math. 10:10, where the staff is forbidden in Matthew and Luke but permitted in Mark's account of Jesus' instructions to his disciples.

Of slightly more significance are the differences in the three Biblical accounts of Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. These differences can be explained as due to slight errors in memory and should not detract from our acceptance in the Bible. But they do show that even great apostles are not infallible in all things, just as the Bible itself is not infallible in every little detail. 

Paul relates his story three times in the Bible (Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26), and each time there appear to be differences, even contradictions. There are many details that differ between the three accounts. A well-known problem concerns the other witnesses who were with Paul. Look at the three accounts:

-- Acts 9:7 --
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 

-- Acts 22:9 --
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 

--Acts 26:14 --
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .

Did the others hear the voice or not? Did they fall or remain standing? (Does it really matter?) Anti-Mormon critics would revel in an apparent contradiction of this magnitude in the Book of Mormon or in the history of Joseph Smith, but they are quick to gloss over such problems in the Bible. I think we need to be generous with Paul and recognize that the peripheral details are not essential for his message. Perhaps the apparent contradictions just relate different aspects of a single story, with others who may have heard the voice and may have been standing initially, but then later fell and did not hear part of the message. Frankly, it looks like a minor contradiction, perhaps resulting from a lapse in memory concerning details of the event, but it does not bother me because I do not require the Bible to be infallible in minor details to still be scripture from God.

There are several more differences in the three accounts of Paul's vision worth noting. Some of the differences seem minor and easily compatible. For example, Acts 9 and 22 simply say the light that Paul saw appeared around him, while Acts 26 say the light was around him and those that were with him. All three agree that the Lord said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" and that Paul said, "Who art thou, Lord?". However, in Acts 9, the Lord says "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" before Paul responds, while Acts 26 has the Lord say that after Paul responds, and Acts 22 makes no mention of that statement from the Lord. 

More analogous to the Joseph Smith First Vision accounts, the accounts in Acts 9 and 22 conclude by telling how Paul regained his sight and make no mention of statements from the Lord about Paul's future mission. Later, though, in Acts 26, Paul does not even mention his blindness and his miraculous recovery, but says instead that the Lord prophesied to him of his future mission among the Gentiles. If Paul were Joseph Smith, critics would accuse him of fabricating new twists to his story and contradicting himself, but I feel it's more fair to believe that both Paul and Joseph were relating different parts of their visionary experiences. Initially, Paul may have been most concerned about the healing of his eyes, while later his recollection of the Lord's words about his mission to the Gentiles became a more important part of the vision.

Anti-Christian critics in the early Christian era "also noted that a number of verses from the Hebrew Bible were incorrectly quoted in the New Testament. For example, they compared Deuteronomy 6:5 with Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27. How could Jesus be the Messiah, the gainsayers asked, if Jesus and his disciples were ignorant of verses that even the youngest child would know?" (Darrick T. Evenson, The Gainsayers: A Converted Anti-Mormon Responds to Critics of the LDS Church," Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, Utah, 1989, pp. 43-44, citing Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages, New York, KTAV, 1977, p. 5). Again, these minor problems do not detract from the divinity of the Bible's message, but should temper our expectations about the inerrancy of any record produced with human assistance.

There are also some examples of prophecies that don't seem to have been fulfilled in the expected or logical way. I discuss several of these on my LDSFAQ page, Questions about Prophets in Latter-day Saint Religion. One obvious example is the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God.

Another problematic prophecy is found in 2 Samuel 7:4-17, where Nathan the prophet tells David that his royal house and kingdom will "be established forever" (v. 16). No conditions are given. The Babylonian invasion later overthrew the throne of David and that kingdom, and it certainly is not in place today. However, we do find conditions in a related prophecy in I Kings 9, given when the Lord appeared to Solomon (v. 2 - one of many reminders that God does appear to some of His prophets, in spite of some anti-LDS claims to the contrary). The Lord told Solomon that He would "establish the throne of thy kingdom for ever, as I promised to David thy father" (v.5) - IF Solomon would walk in the ways of the Lord (v. 4). Solomon failed to follow the Lord and committed terrible sins. Soon the house of David lost the northern kingdom of Israel, and later the throne of David was overthrown. But what Nathan spoke in 2 Samuel 7 was not tempered with any explicit conditions and thus could be branded as an incorrect prophecy. Whatever the case, 2 Samuel 7 is problematic.

On the issue of problems with dates in the Bible, Kevin Hill sent e-mail with the following comments:

The dating/chronology problems in the Bible are legion. Just check out a good Bible Dictionary under the article "Chronology." A few examples:

The ages of the Patriarchs upon their successors' births (and in some cases their ages at death) vary wildly among the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. Which are correct?

The Masoretic Text has 720 years from Abraham's birth to the Exodus; the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch have 505 years. Again, which is correct? Why the discrepancy if the Bible is perfect?

The Septuagint has 10 fewer years from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's temple (as compared to the Masoretic Text). Where did they go?

There are numerous instances where the biblical data does not match the testimony of Assyrian and Babylonian records, and for various reasons scholars have a high degree of confidence in those secular records.

Luke at 2:2 mentions that Jesus was born at the time of a census when one Quirinius was governor of Syria. We know from Roman records that P. Sulpicius Quirinius conducted an assessment in 6-7 C.E. [far too late to be Luke's census] while governor of Syria; he was not governor during Herod's reign. There have been various attempts to resolve this problem. 

(As an aside, some of our Bible-believing critics who get bent out of shape over apparent quirks in the chronology given by Joseph Smith in his writings ought to be careful about making too much of such problems unless they are prepared to fully resolve the problems with chronology in the Bible.)

Another example discussed on my page about Prophets in Latter-day Saint Religion is the case of Tyre and Ezekiel's prophecy of its destruction. I don't think that the problems with this prophecy can be refuted. This small example of a clear difficulty doesn't mean that the Bible is false at all - but that we must understand that it must be interpreted with caution and an open mind, and that it is not strictly inerrant. The only truly inerrant authority is God - that's why continuing revelation through His apostles and prophets is so important for His Church (the true, restored Church of Jesus Christ).

Finally, some people expect the Bible to be not only an infallible guide to faith, but an infallible guide to science as well. They will be disappointed to find (minor) technical "errors" that challenge such assumptions. The PUZZLING description of "fowls that creep upon all four" in Leviticus 11:20 has already been mentioned. Also, in Joshua 10:12-13, when daylight hours were miraculously extended for a battle, we read that "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" - as if the sun goes around the earth. (This may have been an accurate description of what was observed, but it doesn't make good science for those who expect every statement to be scientifically precise.)"

This is not his whole answer (he goes on to explain why we can still trust in the bible, and why it's still God's word even with all of these errors) but I don't feel comfortable pasting more than i have.  For those who want to read the remainder of his answer, go here.  Then go down to "Do you believe the bible has errors?"

[The Nehor]

It is interesting that in the infallible word of God Paul seems confused and seems to think he is offering his personal opinion.

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And neither do I --- however, one must wonder just how long a Biblically infallible Christian has before one is banned for getting under someone's skin. One cannot present the "true" words of GOD unless what one is writing is without error. Revelation 19:9 - John claimed "These are true words of God".  

Which referred only to the book of Revelation and not the Bible as there was no Bible when those words were written.

Revelation was written 50 years after Christ died and wasn't part of any Bible until 400 years after Christ died.  And was apparently hotly debated as scripture.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Canonical_history
 

20 hours ago, FormerLDS said:

With respect to Bluebell's intent within this post, I believe the King James Bible is Heavenly Father's perfect, infallible, pure Words.  I do not believe the text or the doctrines within have somehow been copiously mistranslated and in need of new revelation to restore truth. 

And when did it become such?
At what point did God declare "here is my Bible, it's done".

Curious all those Christians that managed to be Christians for centuries without a Bible.

Edited October 25, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Jane_Doe]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't start a thread, but I am curious...for the LDS here who are wondering about infallibility of the scriptures, what, in the scriptures, would you say is wrong teaching found in scripture? 

I can't buy infallibility.  I find the reasoning strained.  But I dont' know that LDS typically view scripture much differently than their brothers and sisters who accept the notion of infallibility.  I'm guessing some LDS here have parts of the BoM that they find problematic in terms of teaching and doctrine.  But I doubt most active LDS have such a view.

For me a big issue with infallibility view of scripture I that a lot of the time I see it resulting with treating scripture as the memoir of a dead person.  That's backwards: God still lives and still speaks, and we look foremost to Him and He continues to give scripture/illumination.  

*Edit: thinking about this, that issue is more with the idea of closed cannon, which while often closely associated with infallibility ideas is not the same thing.  

I'm also not trying to rant on pro-closed-cannon people here, just sharing my perspective.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Jeff Lindsay has a good collection of some of the errors found in the bible (he was asked a question concerning biblical infallibility and this was his answer.  That's why it only deals with that set of scriptures).  

He says-

"There is no question that some parts of the text have been corrupted. Of the thousands of early Greek and Hebrews manuscripts and fragments that scholars have to work with, there are many small and some serious differences that make it impossible to propose one single, standard text that one might hope to be free from errors. In fact, Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, two non-LDS writers, say that there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts or fragments to work with, containing roughly 250,000 variants among them. They say that "it would be difficult to find a sentence, even part of a sentence, for which the rendering is consistent in every single manuscript. That certainly gives plenty of food for thought." (Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, Initiation a la critique textuelle du Nouveau Testament [An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism], translated by J. Heimerdinger, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p.2, as cited by Kerry A. Shirts, Journal of Mormon Apologetics, Vol. 1, 1999, p. 94.)

Some of the errors are obvious and can be found by an inspection of the Bible alone. Many such problems are discussed by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe in their excellent book, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992). Though written from a faithful Protestant perspective to support the Bible, Geisler and Howe regularly acknowledge that some minor problems and contradictions are due to copyist errors. For example, 1 Kings 4:26 says Solomon had 40,000 stalls when 2 Chronicles 9:25 says he had 4,000. "This is undoubtedly a copyist error" (p. 181). That particular problem is one of many examples of problematic large numbers in the Hebrew text. In 1 Samuel 13:1, a word is missing in the Hebrew (Geisler and Howe, p. 159). The first phrase of that verse literally says that "Saul was the son of ... years when he became king." Translators must fill in the missing word with a numerical estimate, resulting in many contradictions among translations (NKJV gives "one year", NASB gives "forty", and the NIV gives "thirty"). A verse with a word missing shows that the Biblical text cannot be utterly infallible with no missing or corrupted elements. But this is only one of many problems.

Some problems may be minor errors due to translation problems, such as Leviticus 11:20, which speaks of "fowls that creep, going upon all four" (KJV - some other translations offer "insects" instead of "fowls," which makes more sense in the context but still seems biologically puzzling). Listing a bat as a "bird" and a hare as a cud chewer in Deut 14 (verses 7 and 18, respectively) also raises arguably trivial questions about biological accuracy (though it's even more serious than the apparent biological errors anti-Mormons mock in the Book of Mormon).

Further, there are many examples of contradictions within the Bible, though they are usually of minor or non-doctrinal importance, such as the numerical contradiction mentioned above. Other examples of contradictions include I Chron. 21:5 and 2 Samuel 24:9; 2 Sam. 10:8 and 1 Chron. 19:18; 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9; Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and 2 Chron. 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26. Some of these are so plain that even defenders of Biblical inerrancy must at least admit the likelihood of copyist errors (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992, p. 199, comparing 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9 where Jehoiachin's age when he began to reign is given as 18 and 8 years, respectively).

Some errors in the Biblical appear to be simple, easily understood accidents, such as Matthew misattributing a quote from Zechariah (Zech. 11:12-13) to Jeremiah in Matt. 27: 9-10. Others are harder to resolve, though generally still minor, such as the apparent contradiction between Mark 6:8, Luke 9:3, and Math. 10:10, where the staff is forbidden in Matthew and Luke but permitted in Mark's account of Jesus' instructions to his disciples.

Of slightly more significance are the differences in the three Biblical accounts of Paul's vision on the road to Damascus. These differences can be explained as due to slight errors in memory and should not detract from our acceptance in the Bible. But they do show that even great apostles are not infallible in all things, just as the Bible itself is not infallible in every little detail. 

Paul relates his story three times in the Bible (Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26), and each time there appear to be differences, even contradictions. There are many details that differ between the three accounts. A well-known problem concerns the other witnesses who were with Paul. Look at the three accounts:

-- Acts 9:7 --
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 

-- Acts 22:9 --
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 

--Acts 26:14 --
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me. . .

Did the others hear the voice or not? Did they fall or remain standing? (Does it really matter?) Anti-Mormon critics would revel in an apparent contradiction of this magnitude in the Book of Mormon or in the history of Joseph Smith, but they are quick to gloss over such problems in the Bible. I think we need to be generous with Paul and recognize that the peripheral details are not essential for his message. Perhaps the apparent contradictions just relate different aspects of a single story, with others who may have heard the voice and may have been standing initially, but then later fell and did not hear part of the message. Frankly, it looks like a minor contradiction, perhaps resulting from a lapse in memory concerning details of the event, but it does not bother me because I do not require the Bible to be infallible in minor details to still be scripture from God.

There are several more differences in the three accounts of Paul's vision worth noting. Some of the differences seem minor and easily compatible. For example, Acts 9 and 22 simply say the light that Paul saw appeared around him, while Acts 26 say the light was around him and those that were with him. All three agree that the Lord said, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" and that Paul said, "Who art thou, Lord?". However, in Acts 9, the Lord says "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" before Paul responds, while Acts 26 has the Lord say that after Paul responds, and Acts 22 makes no mention of that statement from the Lord. 

More analogous to the Joseph Smith First Vision accounts, the accounts in Acts 9 and 22 conclude by telling how Paul regained his sight and make no mention of statements from the Lord about Paul's future mission. Later, though, in Acts 26, Paul does not even mention his blindness and his miraculous recovery, but says instead that the Lord prophesied to him of his future mission among the Gentiles. If Paul were Joseph Smith, critics would accuse him of fabricating new twists to his story and contradicting himself, but I feel it's more fair to believe that both Paul and Joseph were relating different parts of their visionary experiences. Initially, Paul may have been most concerned about the healing of his eyes, while later his recollection of the Lord's words about his mission to the Gentiles became a more important part of the vision.

Anti-Christian critics in the early Christian era "also noted that a number of verses from the Hebrew Bible were incorrectly quoted in the New Testament. For example, they compared Deuteronomy 6:5 with Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27. How could Jesus be the Messiah, the gainsayers asked, if Jesus and his disciples were ignorant of verses that even the youngest child would know?" (Darrick T. Evenson, The Gainsayers: A Converted Anti-Mormon Responds to Critics of the LDS Church," Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, Utah, 1989, pp. 43-44, citing Daniel J. Lasker, Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages, New York, KTAV, 1977, p. 5). Again, these minor problems do not detract from the divinity of the Bible's message, but should temper our expectations about the inerrancy of any record produced with human assistance.

There are also some examples of prophecies that don't seem to have been fulfilled in the expected or logical way. I discuss several of these on my LDSFAQ page, Questions about Prophets in Latter-day Saint Religion. One obvious example is the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophecy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God.

Another problematic prophecy is found in 2 Samuel 7:4-17, where Nathan the prophet tells David that his royal house and kingdom will "be established forever" (v. 16). No conditions are given. The Babylonian invasion later overthrew the throne of David and that kingdom, and it certainly is not in place today. However, we do find conditions in a related prophecy in I Kings 9, given when the Lord appeared to Solomon (v. 2 - one of many reminders that God does appear to some of His prophets, in spite of some anti-LDS claims to the contrary). The Lord told Solomon that He would "establish the throne of thy kingdom for ever, as I promised to David thy father" (v.5) - IF Solomon would walk in the ways of the Lord (v. 4). Solomon failed to follow the Lord and committed terrible sins. Soon the house of David lost the northern kingdom of Israel, and later the throne of David was overthrown. But what Nathan spoke in 2 Samuel 7 was not tempered with any explicit conditions and thus could be branded as an incorrect prophecy. Whatever the case, 2 Samuel 7 is problematic.

On the issue of problems with dates in the Bible, Kevin Hill sent e-mail with the following comments:

The dating/chronology problems in the Bible are legion. Just check out a good Bible Dictionary under the article "Chronology." A few examples:

The ages of the Patriarchs upon their successors' births (and in some cases their ages at death) vary wildly among the Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint. Which are correct?

The Masoretic Text has 720 years from Abraham's birth to the Exodus; the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch have 505 years. Again, which is correct? Why the discrepancy if the Bible is perfect?

The Septuagint has 10 fewer years from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's temple (as compared to the Masoretic Text). Where did they go?

There are numerous instances where the biblical data does not match the testimony of Assyrian and Babylonian records, and for various reasons scholars have a high degree of confidence in those secular records.

Luke at 2:2 mentions that Jesus was born at the time of a census when one Quirinius was governor of Syria. We know from Roman records that P. Sulpicius Quirinius conducted an assessment in 6-7 C.E. [far too late to be Luke's census] while governor of Syria; he was not governor during Herod's reign. There have been various attempts to resolve this problem. 

(As an aside, some of our Bible-believing critics who get bent out of shape over apparent quirks in the chronology given by Joseph Smith in his writings ought to be careful about making too much of such problems unless they are prepared to fully resolve the problems with chronology in the Bible.)

Another example discussed on my page about Prophets in Latter-day Saint Religion is the case of Tyre and Ezekiel's prophecy of its destruction. I don't think that the problems with this prophecy can be refuted. This small example of a clear difficulty doesn't mean that the Bible is false at all - but that we must understand that it must be interpreted with caution and an open mind, and that it is not strictly inerrant. The only truly inerrant authority is God - that's why continuing revelation through His apostles and prophets is so important for His Church (the true, restored Church of Jesus Christ).

Finally, some people expect the Bible to be not only an infallible guide to faith, but an infallible guide to science as well. They will be disappointed to find (minor) technical "errors" that challenge such assumptions. The PUZZLING description of "fowls that creep upon all four" in Leviticus 11:20 has already been mentioned. Also, in Joshua 10:12-13, when daylight hours were miraculously extended for a battle, we read that "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" - as if the sun goes around the earth. (This may have been an accurate description of what was observed, but it doesn't make good science for those who expect every statement to be scientifically precise.)"

This is not his whole answer (he goes on to explain why we can still trust in the bible, and why it's still God's word even with all of these errors) but I don't feel comfortable pasting more than i have.  For those who want to read the remainder of his answer, go here.  Then go down to "Do you believe the bible has errors?"

Thank you.  I wonder if we have similar for the book fo Mormon?  Any teachings found in it that you find problematic? 

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't start a thread, but I am curious...for the LDS here who are wondering about infallibility of the scriptures, what, in the scriptures, would you say is wrong teaching found in scripture? 

Besides having imperfect translation issues, there are obviously many cultural aspects which have found their way into scripture.

"The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position a wife occupied in the great countries round about... all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance... A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce... the wife called her husband Ba'al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of the father or husband and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession."

-Roland de Vaux, archaeologist and priest

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
 

A question for those who believe the Bible is infallible - does your church that you attend follow the teachings in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I can't start a thread, but I am curious...for the LDS here who are wondering about infallibility of the scriptures, what, in the scriptures, would you say is wrong teaching found in scripture? 

I can't buy infallibility.  I find the reasoning strained.  But I dont' know that LDS typically view scripture much differently than their brothers and sisters who accept the notion of infallibility.  I'm guessing some LDS here have parts of the BoM that they find problematic in terms of teaching and doctrine.  But I doubt most active LDS have such a view.

There are plenty of errors in the Bible.

SEE http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php

I can't speak for most LDS, but I've never felt the BoM was infallible.

SEE Title Page of Book of Mormon

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thank you.  I wonder if we have similar for the book fo Mormon?  Any teachings found in it that you find problematic? 

Here is one example from President Uchtdorf:

Quote

 

In the Book of Mormon, both the Nephites as well as the Lamanites created their own “truths” about each other. The Nephites’ “truth” about the Lamanites was that they “were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people,”8 never able to accept the gospel. The Lamanites’ “truth” about the Nephites was that Nephi had stolen his brother’s birthright and that Nephi’s descendants were liars who continued to rob the Lamanites of what was rightfully theirs.9 These “truths” fed their hatred for one another until it finally consumed them all.

Needless to say, there are many examples in the Book of Mormon that contradict both of these stereotypes. Nevertheless, the Nephites and Lamanites believed these “truths” that shaped the destiny of this once-mighty and beautiful people.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been trained in what are valid arguments and what are not valid arguments

You may be totally correct that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God but this happens to be a bad argument for that position.  Essentially your argument is "The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it is"

Such an argument does not work at all for someone who does not already believe the Bible is infallible.   It is what is called a "circular argument" or "begging the question"

Any group of people could allege that any writing is the Word of God because the volume itself says it is, if the work is fictional or not.  There are many historical novels which use "real" place names and even real events in telling a fictional story- perhaps about the civil war, etc.

So though you may be right, the argument is not effective.

You're right that it is a circular argument. But I think that circular thinking is at the core of the claim of infallibility.

God is perfect.

God gives us his word in the Bible

Therefore the Bible is perfect.

 

I really don't think much thought is given to the process of receiving God's word perfectly, understanding it perfectly, and writing it perfectly. The argument relies on both the perfection of God and also of Men. It's hard to imagine many people accepting the premise that man, through whom the bible came, were perfect. Although that's exactly the argument I heard in church on Sunday about why we follow the prophet. God is perfect and can do miracles therefore we can trust the men who share his word as imperfect vessels who nonetheless share His word perfectly. It makes no sense.

ETA- to the question of "why" argue that the bible is infallible. It is an appeal to authority. "Paul said so" or "Jesus" said so sounds a lot better than saying, "Ed and Molly think..." Not only is the Bible used as a hammer to pound opponents into submission it's also a great way to assert one's own authority (their interpretation) by appealing to an external source as an authority.

Edited October 25, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Here is one example from President Uchtdorf:

 

It seems to me we've gotten a bit off course.  President Uchtdorf is not endorsing a "there is an erroneous teaching in the BoM" with this explanation.  It seems he's saying people have erroneous views of others, and uses the BoM groups to explain that.  I think this is similar to how many infallible promoters view scripture.  They seem to accept that there are errors in history, or whatever in them, but the teachings remain good.  It seems most LDS view the BoM the same. 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems to me we've gotten a bit off course.  President Uchtdorf is not endorsing a "there is an erroneous teaching in the BoM" with this explanation.  It seems he's saying people have erroneous views of others, and uses the BoM groups to explain that.  I think this is similar to how many infallible promoters view scripture.  They seem to accept that there are errors in history, or whatever in them, but the teachings remain good.  It seems most LDS view the BoM the same. 

If we are to accept all of the BOM as God's perfect, pure, and infallible word, then we must accept Mosiah 10:12 as God's unquestionable truth, written by the hand of a prophet of God.

Quote

They were a wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people... (Mosiah 10:12).

That is clearly a teaching of the BoM.  Is it God's word and perfect truth, or is it evidence that man's cultural upbringing and prejudice found their way into the BoM?  Is it from God or man?

[thesometimesaint]

Just now, pogi said:

If we are to accept all of the BOM as God's perfect, pure, and infallible word, then we must accept Mosiah 10:12 as God's unquestionable truth, written by the hand of a prophet of God.

That is clearly a teaching of the BoM.  Is it God's word and perfect truth, or is it evidence that man's cultural upbringing and prejudice found their way into the BoM?  Is it from God or man?

It is both.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is both.

I am speaking of Mosiah 10:12 specifically.  Are those words inspired by God or man?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

If we are to accept all of the BOM as God's perfect, pure, and infallible word, then we must accept Mosiah 10:12 as God's unquestionable truth, written by the hand of a prophet of God.

That is clearly a teaching of the BoM.  Is it God's word and perfect truth, or is it evidence that man's cultural upbringing and prejudice found their way into the BoM?  Is it from God or man?

I doubt you'll find many LDS disagreeing with that for one.  But again, I don't know that squares well with how infallible is used to describe the Bible.  But I'm tired of arguing it (well really I'm about to lose my ability to respond).  I just don't see a difference with infallibility, as many Christians describe the Bible, and the way LDS typically venerate the BoM.  It's less about getting each detail in the writings perfect and more about getting the teachings correct, as I understand infallibility. 

Consider:

Quote

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the "belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility

This does not require the any pronouncement describing another people has to be completely and wholly true.