Is the Bible Infallible or Inerrant

[twb1621]

I agree with this completely, but a true testimony does not mean that everything in it is inerrant. I know of no errors in the Bible that would detract for the testimonies of the apostles or prophets, but I do know of incidental errors that are not the result of translations, copying, etc. So when people claim that the Bible is inerrant the impression they present to “others” is that the Bible is word-for-word perfect, and that is simply not true.

Hi Brian, Scripture as we agree is the Inspired Word of God. It is presented by the Holy Spirit through the hands of men but it does not conflict with itself, nor is it in error. However, it is not completely known to man’s understanding yet with much revealed through time and as time continues. As the living word of God, it continues to relate to events as time goes on. Is it meant to be a completely factual expression of history or science which tells specific dates of events or provides scientific distinctions… no. But at the same time, some of those things we in recent times have labeled “errors” are in fact not errors at all but have been made to seem so due to individual attempts at interpretation. This is why the Catholic Church has always been the single true form of interpretation.
Other things we may question as somehow conflicting, are not necessarily so.
For instance, the death of Saul as it is written in 1 and 2 Samuel have been labeled as conflicting with each other in regard to the death of Saul. this is not true unless one takes the position that his death is written as two versions which it is not. It has been understood for century upon century that the two books of Samuel were in fact one book when written, later divided to express Saul’s times in the first and David’s times in the second portion. By dividing them it may seem there are two separate accounts but it has for centuries been realized that the account of Saul’s death in book one is the factual account of his taking his own life and the claim by the malachite in book two was a lie, in an attempt to gain favor with David by claiming compassion in mercy killing Saul at his own request and a further attempt to overcome the accusation of looting Saul’s body stealing the armlet and head band by offering them to David as a gift. the malachite people practiced looting the bodies of their fallen adversaries routinely according to history.
I would be interested to know some of the issues you are referring to in this regard if you are inclined to say. Thanks for your post.
Peace my brother.

 

[curtish1947]

Ouch,
The pain I see here is large.

Consider in testing, that if Real is defined as: It is true where it is true and It is false where it is false, then in “my own work”, The Bible is Real.

I say in “my own work”, because that is how God caused this to be in me. That reference is of course from The New Testament, where Pauls says (Inspired by The Holy Spirit), if you know God, God caused you to know Him. You did not do it on your own.

After, ““my own work”” was done. I found the Bible is Real, using the definition above and no other.

Historically for me, to get to that point, was roughly 15years of work. I first was motivated by my wife’s and later my daughter’s involvement in a religion that was most reluctant to give simple anwswers to questions. Their religion did say one simple thing though: We follow the Bible only. The unspoken implication was there also of: “Everyone else does not.”

With that one piece of information, I did research, my way. I used the scientific method, but, with the inclusion of ““God if proven”” added to it. God was removed from the scietific method because “Some of those people who were living then, missused Religion.”

(Thus although God is quite in the realm of science, and in secret, some scientists use this, for our benefit like the theory of LASER, which is common place today. I used God, when God was the answer, and told nobody back then. I also recognized that even Einstein did it, after “”"…Calibrating God By Observation…""". I could then tell no one, as saying God is the present form of the Inquistions. It is Heresy. It is scientific Heresy. Einstein, either was in fear, of the scientific community of his day, or he was not in full possesion of more “”“Observations”"" than he had. He did quite allude to where he got his proof that what he said was correct. Years later he was proved right, by experimentation. What he said was true, Is true, on LASERS.)

After using the scientific method, and practical proven philosophy, I found the Bible was not provably wrong, then after controlled experiments, it actually came out to be Real. It is right where it says it is right, it is wrong where it says it is wrong.

Infallible is a Catholic word describing and extremely important point, which has never been proven wrong, to my knowledge ever. Inerrant is a term, I am unfamiliar with, and if needed now, am sorry that I do not understand the meaning.

Infallible, means: “God The Holy Spirit” causes what is agreed upon to be right, by, letting them know it is right.

…Curt…

 

[Cat_Herder]

The bible is a collation of contradictory viewpoints, it is absolutely neither Infallible nor Inerrant.

Name one.

To make apologies for the bible as a means of support for any doctrinal view is to ignore countless other denominational views while declaring a victory that no-one here can support.

You may believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Simply because you hold that opinion and the moon is not made of green cheese, it does not follow that there is no moon.

This line of reasoning is invalid if for no greater reason it must apply without bias to other doctrinal views against the accordance you deem comfortable. Please try again…

You are presupposing that there is no correct interpretation nor any authoritative interpreter and that anyone who can formulate an opinion as to the composition of the moon is, by virtue of having this opinion, a qualified astronomer.

 

[twb1621]

The bible is a collation of contradictory viewpoints, it is absolutely neither Infallible nor Inerrant. To make apologies for the bible as a means of support for any doctrinal view is to ignore countless other denominational views while declaring a victory that no-one here can support. This line of reasoning is invalid if for no greater reason it must apply without bias to other doctrinal views against the accordance you deem comfortable. Please try again…

*2 John CH1; 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.
*
*1 Corinthians CH1; 6 As the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 So that nothing is wanting to you in any grace, waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 Who also will confirm you unto the end without crime, in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. *

It is with understanding and compassion that we should recognize the situation other denominations have been drawn into by those who centuries past “founded” other systems of belief based on their own inability to accept or trust in what they found too hard to believe or understand, but Scripture is clear, there is no variation in doctrines that is considered acceptable and doctrines other than those taught by and through the succession of the apostles is the only doctrine the faithful are to accept. These things are scriptural. These denominations have been so far removed they do not have any idea on what the Truth is in most cases.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

It is with understanding and compassion that we should recognize the situation other denominations have been drawn into by those who centuries past “founded” other systems of belief based on their own inability to accept or trust in what they found too hard to believe or understand, but Scripture is clear, there is no variation in doctrines that is considered acceptable and doctrines other than those taught by and through the succession of the apostles is the only doctrine the faithful are to accept. These things are scriptural. These denominations have been so far removed they do not have any idea on what the Truth is in most cases.

If Christians are guided by the written Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn’t that keeping the doctrines taught by the apostles? What do you mean “they have no idea on what truth is”?

 

[Cat_Herder]

If Christians are guided by the written Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn’t that keeping the doctrines taught by the apostles? What do you mean “they have no idea on what truth is”?

Please define the word “Christian.”

 

[twb1621]

If Christians are guided by the written Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn’t that keeping the doctrines taught by the apostles?

What do you mean “they have no idea on what truth is”?

RE: If Christians are guided by the written Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn’t that keeping the doctrines taught by the apostles?

Not in their entirety and in some matters, not in their interpretation or meaning. That is why there are some many denominations, all following someone’s opinion who found objection to someone else’s opinion. This is the “sifted like wheat” Jesus spoke of when He prayed to His Heavenly Father for Peter, so that Peter may “confirm they brethren”.

RE: What do you mean “they have no idea on what truth is”?

I mean they have their misconceptions of what the Catholic Faith teaches and the doctrines of what they have been taught apart from and in some cases in opposition to the Catholic Church but have in most cases never known the true Catholic Faith to know the difference. The founders of their faiths from centuries past may have knew although it is debatable they even understood properly, but those non-Catholic Christian Faithful in recent years have been too far removed to learn all of scripture as it teaches in a unified, non-conflicting single teaching. The verses they most refer to come in opposition to other verses but they either ignore those or are told they do not apply or perhaps do not pertain to them personally. This is perhaps not deliberate defiance, but is how they are often taught and believe.

Although every non-Catholic Christian Faith teaches some of the teachings which came from the Catholic Faith, there is not one Protestant born Church or system of beliefs that offers the fullness of True Christian doctrine. Every Bible regardless of the version, obtained its contents (not necessarily interpretation) from the Catholic Holy Bible. It was taken from its element and from its teachers to be used to form faiths of men and women who could not accept or trust in all the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are those of Christ.

The Holy Bible is the written teachings Inspired by the Word of God introduced to teach through the sacred Tradition passed on also by the Apostles with their intimate understanding and personal relationship of and with Christ and His message. The fact there were 12 apostles yet only four referred to in writing and in such limited texts for the many years they preached should make it clear, the Gospels are not all there is. Even scripture points that out when it refer to texts that are not found. Without that intimate understanding and succession, the Bible is but a part of the teachings and left to misinterpretation and misunderstanding in many, many cases as the “reformation“ has proven.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Please define the word “Christian.”

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Son of the living God, who was beaten and crucified for the sins of those who place their faith in Him. We further believe that He was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven. His apostles whose memoirs were copied and handed down to the church throughout the world preached his Gospel. Those who believe His gospel with all their heart are given the gift of the Holy Spirit and are Christians.

Do you have a different definition?

 

[Cat_Herder]

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Son of the living God, who was beaten and crucified for the sins of those who place their faith in Him.

Is that all He said?

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 19:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 7:21[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 24:13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mk 10:28[/BIBLEDRB]

We further believe that He was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God in heaven. His apostles whose memoirs were copied and handed down to the church throughout the world preached his Gospel. Those who believe His gospel with all their heart are given the gift of the Holy Spirit and are Christians.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 6:46[/BIBLEDRB]

Do you have a different definition?

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 28:18-20[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts 2:38[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 6:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 12:13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 16:16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Very good, we seem to agree. How about that! It’s all right there in the written word.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Very good, we seem to agree. How about that! It’s all right there in the written word.

[BIBLEDRB]James 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts of the Apostles 8:36[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Brian_Culliton]

[BIBLEDRB]James 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Acts of the Apostles 8:36[/BIBLEDRB]

What traditions do you suppose Paul is talking about?

I have to go, but I will respond later tonight.

 

[jmcrae]

If Christians are guided by the written Gospel of Jesus Christ, isn’t that keeping the doctrines taught by the apostles?

The Gospel writers were not writing books of doctrine. Doctrine is handed down by word of mouth through the Tradition of the Apostles - songs, prayers, litanies, creeds, etc.

Doctrine includes the teachings around the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the nature of the human person, and so on - none of which is more than mentioned in passing, in the Gospels; they are certainly not expounded on in any detail. The Gospels record the sayings of Jesus and the things that He did, and very little else, so they can’t be the sole foundation of any religion.

 

[Cat_Herder]

What traditions do you suppose Paul is talking about?

The traditions that have been collected throughout 2,000 years into this document, which if you would actually take the time to read it and check the footnotes, you would find to be eminently scriptural.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The traditions that have been collected throughout 2,000 years into this document, which if you would actually take the time to read it and check the footnotes, you would find to be eminently scriptural.

From the CCC:

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

1170 At the Council of Nicaea in 325, all the Churches agreed that Easter, the Christian Passover, should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon (14 Nisan) after the vernal equinox.

So if I put these two statements together, dose that mean the Catholic Church teaches that the apostles handed down the tradition that Passover should be celebrated on the Sunday after the 14th of Nisan, but the church never figured it out until 325 A.D.?

 

[chase200mph]

Name one.

You may believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Simply because you hold that opinion and the moon is not made of green cheese, it does not follow that there is no moon.

You are presupposing that there is no correct interpretation nor any authoritative interpreter and that anyone who can formulate an opinion as to the composition of the moon is, by virtue of having this opinion, a qualified astronomer.

Re: Is the Bible Infallible or Inerrant

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by chase200mph
The bible is a collation of contradictory viewpoints, it is absolutely neither Infallible nor Inerrant.

Name one.
Response, name something that isn’t….

Quote:
To make apologies for the bible as a means of support for any doctrinal view is to ignore countless other denominational views while declaring a victory that no-one here can support.

You may believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Simply because you hold that opinion and the moon is not made of green cheese, it does not follow that there is no moon.

Response, to believe the moon is made of green cheese is to believe or have faith in something that has absolutely no proof and or observable evidence to support such a belief, to have faith in a Christian god via the bible is such a belief since the is nothing academicals present and the bible is NOT a historically relevant collation. So your depiction is an example of a religious viewpoint as it stands against logic and reasoning.

Quote:
This line of reasoning is invalid if for no greater reason it must apply without bias to other doctrinal views against the accordance you deem comfortable. Please try again…

You are presupposing that there is no correct interpretation nor any authoritative interpreter and that anyone who can formulate an opinion as to the composition of the moon is, by virtue of having this opinion, a qualified astronomer.
Answer: This (your) non sequitur is full of arbitrary amphiboly. First off I am not implying anything, Christianity implies/proves there is no one correct interpretation. This fact is not of my creation and I have no ownership because it is inherently a Christian paradox that has been unsuccessfully debated for thousands of years…. I assure you I am not that old. : )

 

[Cat_Herder]

Response, name something that isn’t….

Your argument is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Response, to believe the moon is made of green cheese is to believe or have faith in something that has absolutely no proof and or observable evidence to support such a belief, to have faith in a Christian god via the bible is such a belief since the is nothing academicals present and the bible is NOT a historically relevant collation. So your depiction is an example of a religious viewpoint as it stands against logic and reasoning.

Identify the cause of the Big Bang or admit that science is not capable of explaining all truth.

For bonus points explain how a Catholic priest who is supposedly mired in an unreasonable religious viewpoint invented science (and how another one discovered said Big Bang.)

non sequitur is full of arbitrary amphiboly. First off I am not implying anything, Christianity implies/proves there is no one correct interpretation.

If you define Christianity as Protestantism, you’re absolutely correct.

But I am not Protestant and this is not “Protestant Answers.”

Identify any contradictonary change in doctrine in the Catholic Church that has ever occurred.

 

[chase200mph]

*2 John CH1; 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.
*
*1 Corinthians CH1; 6 As the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 So that nothing is wanting to you in any grace, waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 Who also will confirm you unto the end without crime, in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. *

It is with understanding and compassion that we should recognize the situation other denominations have been drawn into by those who centuries past “founded” other systems of belief based on their own inability to accept or trust in what they found too hard to believe or understand, but Scripture is clear, there is no variation in doctrines that is considered acceptable and doctrines other than those taught by and through the succession of the apostles is the only doctrine the faithful are to accept. These things are scriptural. These denominations have been so far removed they do not have any idea on what the Truth is in most cases.

2 John CH1; 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.

Response, and they left their homeland and came to the Americas to seek refuge from Christian oppression and formulated the U.S. Constitution to insure religious oppression would not happen via these built in guaranties.

1 Corinthians CH1; 6 As the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 So that nothing is wanting to you in any grace, waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 Who also will confirm you unto the end without crime, in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

It is with understanding and compassion that we should recognize the situation other denominations have been drawn into by those who centuries past “founded” other systems of belief based on their own inability to accept or trust in what they found too hard to believe or understand, but Scripture is clear, there is no variation in doctrines that is considered acceptable and doctrines other than those taught by and through the succession of the apostles is the only doctrine the faithful are to accept. These things are scriptural. These denominations have been so far removed they do not have any idea on what the Truth is in most cases.

Response, Like I said earlier, I am not interested in denomination bickering. To claim you have an absolute is to claim a victory that you are unable to prove as I’ve seen no concession from the other denominations. If you insist I can level verses that contradict every verse you posted, but to what end? It’s nothing more than adding what your faith calls Blasphemy to another Blasphemy, and your faith (and most others) deems this a fallacy…. Or at least they should. : )

 

[Cat_Herder]

Response, and they left their homeland and came to the Americas to seek refuge from Christian oppression and formulated the U.S. Constitution to insure religious oppression would not happen via these built in guaranties.

[sign1]WRONG.[/sign1]
US Declaration of Independence:

WHEN in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-

US Constitution:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

In fact, all fifty of the United States recognize God in their constitutions. That’s in addition to the federal government, which as you can see, named Jesus as Lord. Here are a few state constitutions.
Texas Constitution Article I sec. 4:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Arkansas Constitution:

“No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” (Article IXX, Section 1)

Maryland Constitution:

No religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God…. (Article XXXVII)

Mississippi Constitution:

“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”

: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” (Article VI, Section 8)

Atheists are Johnny-come-latelies, not the intellectual heirs of our founders; our founders wanted atheism to be as far away from our government as possible. History has vindicated this decision.

Atheists have already had their try at having a sovereign state (indeed, an empire) all their own. It failed, and in the process of failing committed atrocious acts of genocide and other crimes against humanity. This is a matter of historical record. You really should read up on the Cold War and understand what it was about.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Response, Like I said earlier, I am not interested in denomination bickering. To claim you have an absolute is to claim a victory that you are unable to prove as I’ve seen no concession from the other denominations.

At the risk of oversimplification, the other denominations all agree on one thing (and pretty much only one thing): That the Catholic Church is wrong.

That is why they are called Protestants. The word means someone who protests, and in the context of religion, it is someone who protests the Catholic Church.

Here’s my response–why do the Protestants have to concede anything for you to accept the Bible as infallible and/or inerrant? So the Protestants have their own way of interpreting the Bible. Well, it’s a matter of historical record that the Protestant interpretations of the Bible are not those of the first disciples of Jesus Christ and 1,500 years’ worth of their successors. Some are closer than others (like High Church Anglicans), but all of them–and the Orthodox too–have deviated from at least the Catholic understanding of the verses related to the papacy.