Protestant claims bible is infallible

[joclucsylv]

Today, a Jesus only Oneness believer told me that the bible is infallible and that the bible is where he gets his history and that he doesn’t need another source. (I was trying to explain to him that the history of the church is important in understanding which Church is the true Church of Christ) Anyways, how can he think that the bible is infallilbe if anyone can translate it however they want? Can anyone answer that and coach me on what to tell him. Thank you!!

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Today, a Jesus only Oneness believer told me that the bible is infallible and that the bible is where he gets his history and that he doesn’t need another source. (I was trying to explain to him that the history of the church is important in understanding which Church is the true Church of Christ) Anyways, how can he think that the bible is infallilbe if anyone can translate it however they want? Can anyone answer that and coach me on what to tell him. Thank you!!

Can someone say he or she loves the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and say that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the rest of the founding fathers were wrong or stupid?

All important documents have an interpretation that varies via tradition. We know what the US Constitution says by reading what the founders believed and understanding the context in which the document was written. The British Constitution is even more interesting. There is no formal document encompassing all understood British rights and freedoms, but it is all the important documents + important Parliamentary acts that form an unofficial Constitution, which, although in theory could be entirely removed by Parliament, in practice cannot, because the importance surrounding these papers is embedded into an unspoken tradition.

The Bible comes from a similar process. Its contents didn’t fall out of the sky. A faith must have already existed, and established set of Christian doctrines must have already been there, otherwise how do you piece it together? Certainly some of the books were clearly part of canon, others did not seem so obvious, and other books, now apocryphal, could have theoretically made it in. I love what Irenaeus stated in his Against Heresies:
*
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.” And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;…

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.*"

Wish I was alive then so I could pick that brilliant mind of his.

 

[Calvin_Hobbs]

Maybe he would pick yours.

 

[joclucsylv]

Maybe he would pick yours.

I would like to pick it too, because I did not understand a word he wrote.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Let’s see for an English Bible to be infallible requires

Orignals of the Greek and Hebrew – aramic texts
Or infallible textual criticism by dozens of scholars to arrive at the origianals without anything being missing.

For Hebrew and Greek and Latin and other languages to be translated by hundreds of scholars. Or for a person to be able to Read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and other languages that the bible was translated into early on AND for their personal interpretation of those sources to be infallible.

You may want to ask him a few questions, expect a King James Onlyist

Where exactly are the originials for Greek New Testament, Hebrew – Aramic Old Testament? And, more importantly, How do you know?

Who was able to compile using Textual Criticism the Hebrew - Aramic Old Testament? and who was able to compile using textual criticism the greek NT? Push him on the OT.
And, more importantly, How do you know?

How do you know that no verse is missing if compiled by textual scholars?

Do you read Hebrew, Aramic, Greek, Latin and other languages that the Bible was translated into, early on? Who taught you these languages? And, And, more importantly, How do you know they correctly taught you those languages?

Who infallibility translated the Bible out of Greek, Hebrew, Aramic, Latin and other languages involved? And, more importantly, How do you know?

How do you know that your personal interpretation of the English Bible is infallible?
And, more importantly, How do you know?

 

[Big_Dummy]

You could go from the above questions to questions about the canon of the New Testament and authors of those books. Then canon of the OT and authors of those books too.

How do you know you have all the books of the Bible, both New and Old Testaments?

 

[Big_Dummy]

A contradiction to expect from Jesus only, modalists, sabellianists, Oneness people is anti-intellectualism. there are hundreds of posative statements in scriptures about priests — who by the way were very educated.

Each of the steps from textual criticism to translation to correct interpretation requires scholars and intellectuals.

This is a contradiction in his thinking you need to bring out and exploit.

 

[Nicea325]

Today, a Jesus only Oneness believer told me that the bible is infallible and that the bible is where he gets his history and that he doesn’t need another source. (I was trying to explain to him that the history of the church is important in understanding which Church is the true Church of Christ) Anyways, how can he think that the bible is infallilbe if anyone can translate it however they want? Can anyone answer that and coach me on what to tell him. Thank you!!

To be honest,I usually do not waste my time with such people. The minute I hear he or she gets their history from the Bible-Alone,I have no further reason to carry a conversation. God did not confine ALL of history to the Bible-Alone,which is pure ignorance.

 

[Hboggs]

Let’s see for an English Bible to be infallible requires

Orignals of the Greek and Hebrew – aramic texts
Or infallible textual criticism by dozens of scholars to arrive at the origianals without anything being missing.

For Hebrew and Greek and Latin and other languages to be translated by hundreds of scholars. Or for a person to be able to Read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and other languages that the bible was translated into early on AND for their personal interpretation of those sources to be infallible.

You may want to ask him a few questions, expect a King James Onlyist

Where exactly are the originials for Greek New Testament, Hebrew – Aramic Old Testament? And, more importantly, How do you know?

Who was able to compile using Textual Criticism the Hebrew - Aramic Old Testament? and who was able to compile using textual criticism the greek NT? Push him on the OT.
And, more importantly, How do you know?

How do you know that no verse is missing if compiled by textual scholars?

Do you read Hebrew, Aramic, Greek, Latin and other languages that the Bible was translated into, early on? Who taught you these languages? And, And, more importantly, How do you know they correctly taught you those languages?

Who infallibility translated the Bible out of Greek, Hebrew, Aramic, Latin and other languages involved? And, more importantly, How do you know?

How do you know that your personal interpretation of the English Bible is infallible?
And, more importantly, How do you know?

Maybe I’m missing the point, but the Q did not ask if a specific translation of the bible was infallible, but was the Bible (itself) infallible. Granted the Protestant version is missing 7+ books, but what it has if even a reasonable translation is infallible. Page 10 of my NAB, St. Joseph Edition contains the following: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture, must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and WITHOUT ERROR…” VATICAN II, CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION (Abridged)

Peace,

 

[joclucsylv]

To be honest,I usually do not waste my time with such people. The minute I hear he or she gets their history from the Bible-Alone,I have no further reason to carry a conversation. God did not confine ALL of history to the Bible-Alone,which is pure ignorance.

Good point. I always need to stand up for my faith though!!

 

[Telstar]

I might agree that the Bible is the “infallible” word of God, in the sense that it is truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, if not interpreted properly by someone that has the authority to do so, those interpretations that are made ‘willy-nilly’ are certainly not “infallible”.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Maybe I’m missing the point, but the Q did not ask if a specific translation of the bible was infallible, but was the Bible (itself) infallible. Granted the Protestant version is missing 7+ books, but what it has if even a reasonable translation is infallible. Page 10 of my NAB, St. Joseph Edition contains the following: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture, must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and WITHOUT ERROR…” VATICAN II, CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION (Abridged)

Peace,

So, the New World Translation is without error? really?

 

[AmateurPianist]

I thought belief in the infallibility of Scripture was a common belief between us. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Now perhaps strictly speaking “incapable of being incorrect” might not be a totally accurate word to use for a written document, but to me anyway that would be nitpicking

 

[kylemccloughan]

Today, a Jesus only Oneness believer told me that the bible is infallible and that the bible is where he gets his history and that he doesn’t need another source. (I was trying to explain to him that the history of the church is important in understanding which Church is the true Church of Christ) Anyways, how can he think that the bible is infallilbe if anyone can translate it however they want? Can anyone answer that and coach me on what to tell him. Thank you!!

the Bible IS infallible. It just isn’t the only thing that has authority.

 

[brianwalden]

Today, a Jesus only Oneness believer told me that the bible is infallible and that the bible is where he gets his history and that he doesn’t need another source. (I was trying to explain to him that the history of the church is important in understanding which Church is the true Church of Christ) Anyways, how can he think that the bible is infallilbe if anyone can translate it however they want? Can anyone answer that and coach me on what to tell him. Thank you!!

There are multiple things going on here. Scripture is the inspired word of God and is therefore infallible in the sense that it contains no error concerning faith and morals. Scripture is also text - it cannot interpret itself and therefore always requires an interpreter. We are fallible interpreters of Scripture, which is why, if we’re smart we turn to others who are smarter than us for help in interpreting scripture. I think this is the point you’re trying to make.

Also, the bible is not infallible concerning history, this is not it’s purpose. If the main point of your friend’s argument is that he gets his history solely from the Bible, you may want to show evidence of where the Bible errs concerning history. I don’t know off the top of my head, but I believe there are several places where historical events and or dates are wrong in the bible. I’d also make your friend explain his beliefs deeper. Does he rely on other sources for history after apostolic times? What is his opinion of historical events from biblical times on which the Bible is silent? etc. Questioning will cause him to examine and possibly re-examine his position.

 

[Hboggs]

So, the New World Translation is without error? really?

I honestly don’t know and don’t really care. I think we all know that there are “good” translations and “bad” translations and a great deal of common sense has to be used and if you don’t have any common sense, then pray for the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t like the fact that “Hail, full of Grace” has been replaced with “Favoured One” in the NAB, but I still read it every day. I don’t consider that change to be minor either. In my opinion I think that it is a materially incorrect translation; whether or not that makes the NAB fallible is not my call based on the preface as previously quoted.

 

[Esto_Castus]

There are multiple things going on here. Scripture is the inspired word of God and is therefore infallible in the sense that it contains no error concerning faith and morals. Scripture is also text - it cannot interpret itself and therefore always requires an interpreter. We are fallible interpreters of Scripture, which is why, if we’re smart we turn to others who are smarter than us for help in interpreting scripture. I think this is the point you’re trying to make.

Also, the bible is not infallible concerning history, this is not it’s purpose. If the main point of your friend’s argument is that he gets his history solely from the Bible, you may want to show evidence of where the Bible errs concerning history. I don’t know off the top of my head, but I believe there are several places where historical events and or dates are wrong in the bible. I’d also make your friend explain his beliefs deeper. Does he rely on other sources for history after apostolic times? What is his opinion of historical events from biblical times on which the Bible is silent? etc. Questioning will cause him to examine and possibly re-examine his position.

Brand new member here, so be gentle…as a “Protestant” I can whole heartedly agree with Brian’s comments here. For the most part when we (Protestants) speak of infallibility we are addressing the condition of the original texts as received by the authors, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, from the Father. Very rightly it has pointed out that we are fallible creations attempting to transmit infallible information to the masses. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of languages knows that it is nigh on impossible in some languages to translate verbatim from language A to language B. On the part of those who follow the infallibility of specific “translations” it is usually a simple matter of mis-education or lack of understanding of how the scriptures are translated.

However: There is a faith attributed as to the current condition of our scriptures (whatever accuracy they do impart from the original language texts) that the Father has preserved according to His will and eternal purposes the content and truth of His word to such an extent that it is complete “enough” for 2 Timothy 3:16 to still hold true.

Esto Castus

 

[byeveryword]

There are multiple things going on here. Scripture is the inspired word of God and is therefore infallible in the sense that it contains no error concerning faith and morals. Scripture is also text - it cannot interpret itself and therefore always requires an interpreter. We are fallible interpreters of Scripture, which is why, if we’re smart we turn to others who are smarter than us for help in interpreting scripture. I think this is the point you’re trying to make.

Also, the bible is not infallible concerning history, this is not it’s purpose. If the main point of your friend’s argument is that he gets his history solely from the Bible, you may want to show evidence of where the Bible errs concerning history. I don’t know off the top of my head, but I believe there are several places where historical events and or dates are wrong in the bible. I’d also make your friend explain his beliefs deeper. Does he rely on other sources for history after apostolic times? What is his opinion of historical events from biblical times on which the Bible is silent? etc. Questioning will cause him to examine and possibly re-examine his position.

As far as questioning the infallibilty of the history of holy scripture, that is debatable.

Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the historicity of many people and events in the OT. Such as the historicity of Genesis and marriage between a man and woman, the murder of Abel, Noah and the flood, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses and the burning bush, the manna in the wilderness, David eating the loaves of bread in the temple, King Solomon in all his glory, Elijah and the widow of Sidon, Elisha and the healing of Naaman the Syrian, Jonah and the big fish, and
the historicity of Daniel and his prophecy of the abomination of desolation.

Stephen, the first martyr of our Christian faith, gives a very detailed summation of the history of the people of Israel in Acts 7.

 

[TimothyH]

However: There is a faith attributed as to the current condition of our scriptures (whatever accuracy they do impart from the original language texts) that the Father has preserved according to His will and eternal purposes the content and truth of His word to such an extent that it is complete “enough” for 2 Timothy 3:16 to still hold true.

Esto Castus

Hello Esto.

I’m wondering where that doctrine comes from, that God protects the content and truth of his word with regards to the objective measuring stick laid out by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:16? “Enough” certianly seems like a loophole big enough to drive a Mack Truck full of contraceptives and abortion equipment through.

I think you have taken 2 Timothy 3:16 completely out of context. For one thing, Paul was a scholar of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament hadn’t been written when he wrote those words. When he says “All Scripture”, he is referencing the Old Testament explicitly and exclusively.

Esto, with all due respect, I think you disprove your own point. Where does the line get drawn? And by whom? What changes are protected and what mistakes are not?

-Tim-

 

[brianwalden]

As far as questioning the infallibilty of the history of holy scripture, that is debatable.

Our Lord Jesus Christ spoke of the historicity of many people and events in the OT. Such as the historicity of Genesis and marriage between a man and woman, the murder of Abel, Noah and the flood, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses and the burning bush, the manna in the wilderness, David eating the loaves of bread in the temple, King Solomon in all his glory, Elijah and the widow of Sidon, Elisha and the healing of Naaman the Syrian, Jonah and the big fish, and
the historicity of Daniel and his prophecy of the abomination of desolation.

Stephen, the first martyr of our Christian faith, gives a very detailed summation of the history of the people of Israel in Acts 7.

Thanks byeeveryword, You made me do me do some research and I was wrong: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441

I assent to the Church’s teaching that Scripture is wholly inerrant.