H
hawkeye
Guest
To all those that claim to be followers of Christ, do you believe that the Bible is inerrant ?
- Status
V
Verbum
Guest
Yes.
J
John7
Guest
Yea.
But struggling to understand text variants in eg the Greek. For example from the ‘received Greek text’ Phil 4:13 reads
“I can do all things through **Christ **which strengtheneth me”
But from Westcott-Hort’s Greek you get
“I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”
To me its not a big difference, but its a difference…which is right? which is in error? But wait how can there be any errors?
I rationalize it and say, the ‘Word of God’ is inerrant but the different English bibles I use based on different Greek might not be in small details 
But struggling to understand text variants in eg the Greek. For example from the ‘received Greek text’ Phil 4:13 reads
“I can do all things through **Christ **which strengtheneth me”
But from Westcott-Hort’s Greek you get
“I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”
To me its not a big difference, but its a difference…which is right? which is in error? But wait how can there be any errors?
I rationalize it and say, the ‘Word of God’ is inerrant but the different English bibles I use based on different Greek might not be in small details
N
NHInsider
Guest
Fortunately Catholics understand that believing in inerrancy is not the same as literalism. Or, at least, we’re supposed to. . .Yea.
But struggling to understand text variants in eg the Greek. For example from the ‘received Greek text’ Phil 4:13 reads
“I can do all things through **Christ **which strengtheneth me”
But from Westcott-Hort’s Greek you get
“I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”
To me its not a big difference, but its a difference…which is right? which is in error? But wait how can there be any errors?
D
davidv
Guest
Yes.
P
patg
Guest
How do you define “inerrant”? Which translation? Which version of the source text (since we don’t have the originals)?
Yes, the bible teaches the inerrant truth God inspired for the sake of our salvation but that in no way implies that we are bound to a literalistic reading or that fiction, legend, myth, etc are not valid vehicles for revelation.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Exactomundo. Ditto for historical accuracy.
H
hawkeye
Guest
Ok thanks for the replies, if this offends I’ll ask the moderators to close it.
But was watching a YouTube video of your new President, and he referred to those who think the Bible is in-errant.
Then he went on to sort of mock the Sermon on the Mount, he joked about your Defense Department, that they couldn’t follow something so radical.
Has anyone saw this on YouTube ? it may be old news, but it’s the first time I saw it.
If you want to see it, just do a YouTube search, as I don’t think I’m allowed to post links to YouTube.
I’ve probably taken him out of context, and hes taken the Bible out of context, but couldn’t help wondering, MAN OF GOD ? Christian ? …Ummm !
N
Newbie2
Guest
I think we all know the answer to that one…
N
NHInsider
Guest
No, we don’t. We explicitly deny that any of us can know for certain the condition of another man’s soul. Obama professes to be a “born-again” Christian, not a Catholic.I think we all know the answer to that one…
And I suspect that most people here would be hesitant to suggest that the DoD be governed by the principles of “turn the other cheek.” I don’t think that constitutes mocking the Bible.
I think he, and most men of faith who have been elected President, has to struggle to reconcile the obligations of the faith as they govern our lives, and the obligations of the office as he governs the nation. Kennedy was a Catholic. Nixon was a Quaker. Carter was a Baptist. Bush Sr. was a Presbyterian. Bush II claimed to be a born-again. I didn’t necessarily approve of every decision any of them made. That doesn’t put me in a position to judge their states of grace.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Then why did he specifically reference the bible at all? He wasn’t pointing out inerrancy to do anything else but to further his political career. Christianlike behavior?
We’re not judging his state of grace, only questioning whether or not his values reflect those that a person in his position should reflect.
And I suspect most people here would hesistate to say that re-funding world-wide abortions with our tax money reflects Christian values.
C
Catholicc
Guest
source: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
The Bible Is Not Infallible
By Karl Keating
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. I wish they would stop. It is a misconstrual of the word. I know they mean well, but they are abusing a good and useful theological term.
Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. *Infallible *means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.
When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).
Put another way, the active agent is alive and capable of making decisions. A human being is an active agent. Normally human beings are fallible. Sometimes they decide rightly, and sometimes they decide wrongly. In a few instances (such as the pope when speaking ex cathedra or the bishops united with the pope when speaking through an ecumenical council) human beings may decide infallibly.
But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.
The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.
The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.
Inerrant would not be the word to use about, say, a pope. A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he “contains” no error, but every pope does. A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.
When Vatican I (1869–70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
Like other disciplines, theology has words of art. For them to convey their true meaning, we must use them accurately. We need to understand that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible—but not the other way around
source: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
The Bible Is Not Infallible
By Karl Keating
Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. I wish they would stop. It is a misconstrual of the word. I know they mean well, but they are abusing a good and useful theological term.
Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. *Infallible *means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.
When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).
Put another way, the active agent is alive and capable of making decisions. A human being is an active agent. Normally human beings are fallible. Sometimes they decide rightly, and sometimes they decide wrongly. In a few instances (such as the pope when speaking ex cathedra or the bishops united with the pope when speaking through an ecumenical council) human beings may decide infallibly.
But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.
The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision. This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.
The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.
Inerrant would not be the word to use about, say, a pope. A pope may act infallibly in carefully prescribed circumstances, but he is not inerrant. To claim that he is inerrant is to claim that he “contains” no error, but every pope does. A pope’s store of knowledge, at least on matters of religion, is likely far better than yours or mine, but no pope has had a mind so capacious and exacting that he knew every religious fact with perfection.
When Vatican I (1869–70) taught about papal prerogatives, it did not say that the pope is inerrant. It said he teaches infallibly in certain circumstances. He is able to do that through the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
Like other disciplines, theology has words of art. For them to convey their true meaning, we must use them accurately. We need to understand that the Bible is inerrant and the pope infallible—but not the other way around
source: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
With respect to Karl Keating, it’s actually not just Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.
The Church also uses infallible in reference to Sacred Scripture, as, for example, in the recent Synod of Bishops’ Lineamenta: “Emphasis needs to be placed on the Word of God’s …] infallible [Latin = infallibilem] confirmation in Sacred Scripture and its transmission in the living Tradition of the Church.”
And in responding to a question posed to him, St. Augustine answers, “how ancient is the ordinance of sacrifice which the infallible and sacred writings declare to be due to no other than to the one true God” (Letter 102).
With the love of Christ,
Pete
O
OldRedleg
Guest
“Everything in the Bible is true…and some of it actually happened!”
Yes, the Bible is inerrant in the truths it proclaims. It conveys these truths using many different literary techniques. Jesus taught using parables, or stories, to convey His message is just one example.
Yes, the Bible is inerrant in the truths it proclaims. It conveys these truths using many different literary techniques. Jesus taught using parables, or stories, to convey His message is just one example.
- Status