Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A recent thread touched upon the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility. Protestant churches, by and large, teach a related or similar belief, that of inerrancy of scripture.
Both may claim the same scriptural support.
"Based on Christ’s Mandate"
"Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15),..." [From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility]
Thus we seem to have a similar basis for the belief in a church's infallibility or inerrancy.
But are these really the same thing? And should scripture be interpreted literally on this subject?
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-28-2015 at 06:21 AM..
Reason: typo
A recent thread touched upon the Catholic Church's belief in infallibility. Protestant churches, by and large, teach a related or similar belief, that of inerrancy of scripture.
Both may claim the same scriptural support.
"Based on Christ’s Mandate"
"Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15),..." [From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility]
Thus we seem to have a similar basis for the belief in a church's infallibility or inerrancy.
But are these really the same thing? And should scripture be interpreted literally on this subject?
No Church or man is infallible.
The original writings were Inspired and Inerrant. However copying errors and some additions (which we know about) mean the translations available today are not perfect. However no truth of scripture was altered that impacts our relationship with God and His Son, nor that helps us see the type of life we should lead. Therefore by using the various translations no truth is lost as we can access more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient book ever written. They agree on virtually everything except a few spelling issues and a number or two. The added verses do not change any teaching though some try to make them do so. Where a difference in a reading exists it impacts nothing of import in our relationship with God.
Thus Paul's words to Timothy are accurate even today.
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The original writings were Inspired and Inerrant. However copying errors and some additions (which we know about) mean the translations available today are not perfect. However no truth of scripture was altered that impacts our relationship with God and His Son, nor that helps us see the type of life we should lead. Therefore by using the various translations no truth is lost as we can access more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient book ever written. They agree on virtually everything except a few spelling issues and a number or two. The added verses do not change any teaching though some try to make them do so. Where a difference in a reading exists it impacts nothing of import in our relationship with God.
Thus Paul's words to Timothy are accurate even today.
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
RESPONSE:
>>"They agree on virtually everything" "no truth of scripture was altered "<<
No. I'm afraid that there are some significant differences. What copies of the Bible are you using that were written earlier than the 4th century? So the obvious question is if we don't have extant copies of the early Gospels, how do we know what was added or removed. ?
For example, does the Codex Sinacticus (c 325) or the Codes Vaticanus (c 375) contain the story in John 7/8 about the woman being taken in adultery? When was it added?
And don't we know that the longer ending to Mark's gospel that we have today was a second century addition?
And the present ending of Matthew describes Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Eusebius refers to earlier copies of Matthew' ending (that he had) that do not contain any reference to a Trinity.
And the five explicit references to the conferring of Baptism in the New Testament are all in the name of Jesus alone. To Trinity reference is recorded to having been used.
No Church or man is infallible.
The original writings were Inspired and Inerrant. However copying errors and some additions (which we know about) mean the translations available today are not perfect. However no truth of scripture was altered that impacts our relationship with God and His Son, nor that helps us see the type of life we should lead. Therefore by using the various translations no truth is lost as we can access more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient book ever written. They agree on virtually everything except a few spelling issues and a number or two. The added verses do not change any teaching though some try to make them do so. Where a difference in a reading exists it impacts nothing of import in our relationship with God.
Thus Paul's words to Timothy are accurate even today.
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Agreed, and in addition;
2 Tim 2:15; Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
Rom 10:17; So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
The original writings were Inspired and Inerrant. However copying errors and some additions (which we know about) mean the translations available today are not perfect. However no truth of scripture was altered that impacts our relationship with God and His Son, nor that helps us see the type of life we should lead. Therefore by using the various translations no truth is lost as we can access more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient book ever written. They agree on virtually everything except a few spelling issues and a number or two. The added verses do not change any teaching though some try to make them do so. Where a difference in a reading exists it impacts nothing of import in our relationship with God.
Thus Paul's words to Timothy are accurate even today.
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
And the bible? By your definition it also has to be fallible...
Thus Paul's words to Timothy are accurate even today.
KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
RESPONSE:
So these are given for reproof and correction?
(1 Sam 15:1-3) Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
(Numbers 31:17-18) Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
We seem to be trying to focus on scripture. Are all God's teaching (such as these) found in scripture inerrant and infallible?
>>"They agree on virtually everything" "no truth of scripture was altered "<<
No. I'm afraid that there are some significant differences. What copies of the Bible are you using that were written earlier than the 4th century? So the obvious question is if we don't have extant copies of the early Gospels, how do we know what was added or removed. ?
For example, does the Codex Sinacticus (c 325) or the Codes Vaticanus (c 375) contain the story in John 7/8 about the woman being taken in adultery? When was it added?
And don't we know that the longer ending to Mark's gospel that we have today was a second century addition?
And the present ending of Matthew describes Jesus' command to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Eusebius refers to earlier copies of Matthew' ending (that he had) that do not contain any reference to a Trinity.
And the five explicit references to the conferring of Baptism in the New Testament are all in the name of Jesus alone. To Trinity reference is recorded to having been used.
You need to quote the details.
The nature of history is that it is up to your faith to decide which version of saying is holding the truth.
For example,
For example, does the Codex Sinacticus (c 325) or the Codes Vaticanus (c 375) contain the story in John 7/8 about the woman being taken in adultery? When was it added?
Whatever codex we can acquire at hand is only up to 4th century. Those artifacts are supposed to be the copies of copies. God however will direct its contents to be theologically consistent with the KJV stream of texts. In the end, both versions (NIV and KJV) can stand the heavenly court that they are directed by God the convey the same salvation message disregarding the different wordings are used.
It is the humans' incapability to keep the originals, God however makes the Bible perfect in serving its purpose. Both versions can be legitimate in conveying the same valid message when standing in front of the heavenly court.
We seem to be trying to focus on scripture. Are all God's teaching (such as these) found in scripture inerrant and infallible?
Yes. So?
You don't have the intelligence to interpret those information correctly. That's the situation.
Genesis,
Humans choose to rely on their intelligence/knowledge to act, instead of listening to the Word of God with faith. Their intelligence however is low and limited. The day they decide to rely on their limited intelligence to even judge God, the same day they shall surely die.
I just did. Are you having difficulty understanding that scripture was added to (interpolated) over time? Or the part about slaughtering innocent children might not have come from God?
>>The nature of history is that it is up to your faith to decide which version of saying is holding the truth.<<
RESPONSE: So in short you are saying that one gets to pick the version one likes regardless of the evidence? There are many varieties of "faith" to pick from.
When did the current version of the Bible( the Codex Sinacticus (c 325) or the Codes Vaticanus (c 375)) add the story in John 7/8 about the woman being taken in adultery?
>>Whatever codex we can acquire at hand is only up to 4th century. Those artifacts are supposed to be the copies of copies. God however will direct its contents to be theologically consistent with the KJV stream of texts. In the end, both versions (NIV and KJV) can stand the heavenly court that they are directed by God the convey the same salvation message disregarding the different wordings are used.<<
Actually, there was a later attempt to add another Johnnaine passage (to 1 John) to provide scriptural support for the existence of the Trinity . But it's now been dropped.
Does God direct the Bible's older content and newer additions to be theologically consistent, or do men do that?
RESPONSE:
Are you asserting that later interpolations to scripture were really there all along? Or are you claiming that God added them long after the canon of the Bible was completed?
>>It is the humans' incapability to keep the originals, God however makes the Bible perfect in serving its purpose. Both versions can be legitimate in conveying the same valid message when standing in front of the heavenly court."<<
RESPONSE: Are you claiming that God makes changes in the bible as time progressed . Not man? Do you have any facts to support your theory ?
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-28-2015 at 02:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
