The Bible is NOT infallible

[jjanderson]

jjanderson:

The one thing I’m concluding here is that Catholics need to get some good Bible studies floating around. The Catholic Church does a great job with the Cathechism (it’s available), which Protestants DON’T have, but more Catholic Bible study would be great, so people would understand the “senses” of Scripture, (allegory, hyperbole) etc. as well as Salvation history, typology, etc.

SHIBBOLETH: Sorry, I just re-read my post and you’re right, it’s very misleading. I meant to say, Protestants don’t have them readily available. Thanks for catching that.

Peace in Christ +

 

[Redeemerslove]

Karl Keating:

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. I wish they’d stop. It’s a misconstrual of the word.

“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.

True enough Karl, in a pastoral language. I think when Protestants say the Bible is infallible, they tend mean to that the content of the Bible is without error in it’s material statements. Even this has problems though, because we know well enough about “Scribal Error.”

I would rather say that the analogical content of the bible is infallible, but in order to properly understand this content, you need an infallible source to guide you into it’s meaning. Also, in order to understand this content, you need to whole Gospel (both spoken and written) not the written content alone.

So I would say, along with Jim Akins as I have heard him say, that what’s in the bible is infallible. But what’s in the bible isn’t the whole message.

God Bless.

 

[Geocacher]

**The bible itself is not infallible, but OF infallible people. **The way I like to look at it, is if it was written, Translated, Published, and then Bound into book form by GOD himself, then there could be no error, but as I see it humans have had it in their hands since from it’s beginning. This whole confusion on proper terminology, reminds me of the silly Car Dealers that no longer liked calling their cars USED, but now called PRE-OWED. Does this sound like a car that never was owned because it was PRE-OWNED, or before being owned. I think people got lazy on the use of the word Infalible as far as talking about it’s possible errors introduced over time.

Infalible: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Google Search: google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=infallible

I had also looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary, and it said **Incapable of erring **and in Definition # 3 it mentions the RCC. It seems to be mainly a RCC word.

 

[Redeemerslove]

The bible itself is not infallible, but OF infallible people. The way I like to look at it, is if it was written, Translated, Published, and then Bound into book form by GOD himself, then there could be no error, but as I see it humans have had it in their hands since from it’s beginning. This whole confusion on proper terminology, reminds me of the silly Car Dealers that no longer liked calling their cars USED, but now called PRE-OWED. Does this sound like a car that never was owned because it was PRE-OWNED, or before being owned. I think people got lazy on the use of the word Infalible as far as talking about it’s possible errors introduced over time.

Infalible: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Google Search: google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=infallible

I had also looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary, and it said Incapable of erring and in Definition # 3 it mentions the RCC. It seems to be mainly a RCC word.

Alright if you want to do an dictionary discussion, I’m all for that.

This is from Websters. In english literary circles (of which I am a member) American Heritage Dictionary is a has a dubious reputation.

**infallible **\Infal"lible, a. [Pref. in- not + fallible: cf. F. infallible.]

1. Not liable to fail, deceive, or disappoint; indubitable; sure; certain; as, infallible evidence; infallible success; an infallible remedy.

First, infallible according to this definition is an adjective. An adjective can be applied to a person, place or thing. The bible is a thing so this definition applies.

I only addressed those definitional statements that would apply to a thing, not a person. Since the bible isn’t a person, though Protestants seems to talk about it like it is. As a friend of mine has said: “It’s the Word!” Meaning Jesus himself. Let’s Analyze:

Indubitable (Unquestionable): Is the bible questionable as to the analogical meaning of it’s texts? No.

Sure: Is the bible a sure reference for the matter of it’s statements, analogically? Yes. Maybe not it’s literal statements, but it’s analogical statements, I would say a definate “yes.”

Certain: Is the bible certain in it’s content? Nope, not literally. Yep, Analogically.

Infallible Evidence: Is the bible infallible evidence of the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ? I hope so, or we wouldn’t be quoting it so often.

Infallible Success: Is the bible an infallible success? I would think that all the Fathers of the Church would say so, since they quoted it so often. And the Pope and Church Councils as well.

Infallible Remedy: Is the bible an infallible remedy for our spiritiual ills? Nope. Not without a infallible guide.

I think this should address the use of the word infallible being applied to the bible. It’s valid. But used in the sense that the bible is an agent, that can help us decide every newly arising doctrinal issue - incorrect. The bible doesn’t have a brain or think.

Adieu