For non-CAtholics - Bible Inerrant? Infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thessalonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thessalonian

Guest
This is related to my other English tranlations thread but has a little different perspective I want to give full consideration. You guys reject infallibility, i.e. men cannot be infallible. Correct. Now I will allow you if you like to say that in writing scripture, the sacred writers were infallible. I agree completely with that and we have no quarrellel. Or you might say the Holy Spirit which was infallible dictated it to them. I think this has a lack of balance regarding how the scriptures got here but I won’t debate that with you here either. The scriptures as written by the Sacred Writers were infallible. I said were.

Here’s the problem for you. There are no longer infallible men even if there was at the time of the writings according to your theology. I even hear non-catholics say all the time “well noone can get it all right” concerning interprutaion of the scriptures. Well how is tranlating them any different. Can anyone or any group tranlate the whole Bible absolutely 100% infallibly inerrantly free of mistakes, in complete fidelity to the original text and meaning? If so what is the scriptural basis on which you guarantee that tranlations are completely inerrant and infallible? What is the mechanism? You must then accept some conditional infallibility dogma so what is it. If not it seems to me you have a problem. You have an infallibility doctrine (that the Bible is the infallible word of God is your doctrine) but you apply it to English translations that you cannot call infallible. Don’t view these posts as an attack on the Bible. I hold it to be the inerrant word of God. I do have a present day mechanism of infallibility.

Looking forward to your replies.

Blessings
 
Hi, thessalonian,

I, too, look forward to replies to your question!

Best,
reen
 
Thessalonian,

I’ll try to give some sort of reply but be forewarned that I won’t be any fun at all because 1) i’m horrible at this sort thing and 2) I’ve become so Catholicized that my thinking seems to be more Catholic than Protestant anymore.

First let’s see if I understand you’re question correctly. As I have to have things explained to me on a kindergarten level, I’m going to attempt to keep it simple. You’re saying.
  1. Prots say that the scripture is infallible and that the men writing the sciptures wrote them infallibly, in their native tongues.
  2. Even if those guys were infallible when writing scriptures, there are no more infallible men.
  3. So, how can anyone infallibly translate scriptures from original text to English. How can we call a Bible in English infallible due to fallible people translating it?
Before I even make a pitiful, laughable attempt at a response, let me know if I have that right. Sorry…I had to dummy it down for myself. :o
 
Okay…here goes. In the Protestant circles I’ve been in, I’ve had conversations with people about various translations of the Bible and stuff. And sometimes the question(s) was/werebrought up - “Why are there so many different translations?” and “If there are difference in translations, even subtle ones, then which one is right? Are they all okay? Just some of them?”

The reponses were variations of the same basic theme and I’ll see if I can tell you what I’ve heard.

It seems at least the majority of Prots are sola scriptura and place a big emphasis on the Bible. The Bible is the “handbook” the “sole rule of faith” as I"ve heard the expression on these forums.
The most prominent explanation of this dilemma that I"ve heard is this: God will protect His Word and make sure it’s accurate. And then if you go to say, “Well great, but are all the translations accurate? Are some more accurate than others?” Then the response will be something like, “Even though minor details and selected words may vary among them, the essence is preserved. God won’t let His Word be translated wrongly.” Or something like that. This is, of course, excluding those who are King James only.

I hoped that helped get the ball rolling. Those are the responses of heard to your question or at least some form of your question.
 
That’s the answer I expect to get (though I got a somewhat different one from a pastor I know, who by the way supported his view with a symposim and book by Norman Geisler). It seems very inadequate. I’ll wait to comment on it hoping that others will respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top