Infallibility of the Bible

[Jack Koons]

• 

Greetings,

I could not help but notice the distinct wording that I find in nearly all 'Doctrinal Statements, or Statements of Faith in this sites "What We Believe". The wording to which I refer is the belief of 'infallibility', or 'inerrancy' of the 'originals'. I am pleased that nearly all of Christians have this belief, however, what about the Bible we hold in our hands today? Since the Bible is our 'final authority'; shouldn't it be infallible as well?

Jack

[JB Horn]

• 

Greetings,

I could not help but notice the distinct wording that I find in nearly all 'Doctrinal Statements, or Statements of Faith in this sites "What We Believe". The wording to which I refer is the belief of 'infallibility', or 'inerrancy' of the 'originals'. I am pleased that nearly all of Christians have this belief, however, what about the Bible we hold in our hands today? Since the Bible is our 'final authority'; shouldn't it be infallible as well?

Jack

Hello Jack welcome.

There are many translations out there, some good and some not so good. Many that have been taken from the Latin of Rome and from the KJV. Some from the earliest Greek and Hebrew. Some have the book of Mark stopping at 16:8 and some go on to 16:20.

So what (or which) are we addressing in your post?

 

[Fat]

• 

Hello Jack welcome.

There are many translations out there, some good and some not so good. Many that have been taken from the Latin of Rome and from the KJV. Some from the earliest Greek and Hebrew. Some have the book of Mark stopping at 16:8 and some go on to 16:20.

So what (or which) are we addressing in your post?

I think you forgot to include the NWT that contradicts it's self every other book. My gut filling is that is what this post is about. Sorry Jack if I'm wrong about that.

[Jack Koons]

• 

Thanks for the welcome!

The issue I am trying to discuss is not about 'one Bible in one language', rather what I am addressing is the issue of 'transmission without error'; not only to copies of the 'originals', but to other languages as well.

Jack

[JB Horn]

• 

Thanks for the welcome!

The issue I am trying to discuss is not about 'one Bible in one language', rather what I am addressing is the issue of 'transmission without error'; not only to copies of the 'originals', but to other languages as well.

Jack

Ran across this by S. Michael Houdmann
This is truly a difficult issue to grasp. Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

How do we deal with this? First, it is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago.

Second, we should not be quick to say “Oh, that is just a scribal error.” The vast majority, if not all, of Bible “errors” can be explained in a logical and believable manner. Those that cannot by explained, or are very difficult to explain – could very well have an answer that we simply do not know at this point. Just because we cannot find a solution does not mean that a solution doesn’t exist. Believing there to be a scribal error must be the absolute last resort in any supposed Bible “error.”

Ultimately, though, it is possible that errors have crept into our modern manuscripts and translations of the Bible. Copyists and translators are human beings and they make mistakes. The fact that the Bible is incredibly accurate is a testimony to its inspiration and preservation by God.

Can we still trust the Bible? Absolutely! The Bible translations we have today are God’s Word. The Bible today is just as authoritative as it was in the 1st century A.D. We can completely trust the Bible as being God’s message to us today. Yes, the biblical promises of inspiration and inerrancy only apply directly to the original manuscripts. That does not impact, though, whether our modern Bibles are accurate and authoritative. God’s Word endures forever, despite the occasional failings and mistakes of copyists and translators.

[calluna]

• 

Greetings,

I could not help but notice the distinct wording that I find in nearly all 'Doctrinal Statements, or Statements of Faith in this sites "What We Believe". The wording to which I refer is the belief of 'infallibility', or 'inerrancy' of the 'originals'. I am pleased that nearly all of Christians have this belief, however, what about the Bible we hold in our hands today? Since the Bible is our 'final authority'; shouldn't it be infallible as well?

Jack

Every translation is of necessity a partial revelation. Even the most competent scholar is unequal to the task of conveying the full meaning of much Scripture without a long explanation of what is written. That task is for genuine teachers. Genuine teachers are not easy to find.

Every published translation contains heresy, presumably deliberately, since there is usually competence where interpretations are commonly agreed. It may be supposed that funding for publication will not be provided for any translation that is not 'doctored'. Certainly, no-one should ever attempt to establish a point of doctrine on the basis of a translation.

The 'denomination' that teaches all of its members Greek koine and Hebrew, so that all translations become quaint and disregarded, will be the first Christian one.

[Jack Koons]

• 

Every translation is of necessity a partial revelation. Even the most competent scholar is unequal to the task of conveying the full meaning of much Scripture without a long explanation of what is written. That task is for genuine teachers. Genuine teachers are not easy to find.

Every published translation contains heresy, presumably deliberately, since there is usually competence where interpretations are commonly agreed. It may be supposed that funding for publication will not be provided for any translation that is not 'doctored'. Certainly, no-one should ever attempt to establish a point of doctrine on the basis of a translation.

The 'denomination' that teaches all of its members Greek koine and Hebrew, so that all translations become quaint and disregarded, will be the first Christian one.
[/quote

Calluna,

I fully understand that the work of translation must be performed by people who are educated in the languages at hand. But there are two even greater requirements: 1) They must been of God; and 2) They must be called of God to that purpose.

Just because someone is fluent in Greek, Hebrew or English, doesn't mean they are qualified to translate God's Word. It may surprise you how many 'scholars' do NOT believe the Genesis account of creation, the story of the flood, or the story of Jonah; yet they they either have held, or do hold prestigious positions in scholarship. I believe, "If you don't believe the Bible, don't teach the Bible"!

God does NOT call all scholars to translate scripture. It is my opinion that there are two kinds of scholars: 1) The ones that through submission to the Word of God gain knowledge of it; and 2$ The ones that use their intellect to correct the Word of God, because they refuse to submit to it.

Every ministry, great or small requires a calling from God. It is God's purpose for you. When you understand that, you will be humbled, knowing that anything you do is not you, therefore God must receive all glory for what is accomplished. And He always does the job correctly!

Jack

[Theodore A. Jones]

• 

Ran across this by S. Michael Houdmann
This is truly a difficult issue to grasp. Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

How do we deal with this? First, it is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago.

Second, we should not be quick to say “Oh, that is just a scribal error.” The vast majority, if not all, of Bible “errors” can be explained in a logical and believable manner. Those that cannot by explained, or are very difficult to explain – could very well have an answer that we simply do not know at this point. Just because we cannot find a solution does not mean that a solution doesn’t exist. Believing there to be a scribal error must be the absolute last resort in any supposed Bible “error.”

Ultimately, though, it is possible that errors have crept into our modern manuscripts and translations of the Bible. Copyists and translators are human beings and they make mistakes. The fact that the Bible is incredibly accurate is a testimony to its inspiration and preservation by God.

Can we still trust the Bible? Absolutely! The Bible translations we have today are God’s Word. The Bible today is just as authoritative as it was in the 1st century A.D. We can completely trust the Bible as being God’s message to us today. Yes, the biblical promises of inspiration and inerrancy only apply directly to the original manuscripts. That does not impact, though, whether our modern Bibles are accurate and authoritative. God’s Word endures forever, despite the occasional failings and mistakes of copyists and translators.

Regarding that Houdmann comments about punctuation errors I think there is one that is identifiable.
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.", is not  declarative but rather is a question.
" That if you (only) confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved?" (No!)  "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." It is my opinion that Rom. 10:9&10 is a contrast because whenever Rom. 2:13 is cited 10:9&10 is cited as a refute of 2:13, which sets up the dichotomy of the scripture in argument against the scripture. Houldmann's stated assumptive dismissing punctuational errors as insignificant is insidious. 
 
     

[JB Horn]

• 

Regarding that Houdmann comments about punctuation errors I think there is one that is identifiable.
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.", is not  declarative but rather is a question.
" That if you (only) confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved?" (No!)  "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." It is my opinion that Rom. 10:9&10 is a contrast because whenever Rom. 2:13 is cited 10:9&10 is cited as a refute of 2:13, which sets up the dichotomy of the scripture in argument against the scripture. Houldmann's stated assumptive dismissing punctuational errors as insignificant is insidious. 
 
     

Thank you for your opinion.

1 Cor. 4:6

[Alexander Winslow]

• 

Just a brief note on the infallibility of the Bible, which is better phrased as the infallibility of the inspired word of God.

After over fifty years of teaching and research into the Holy Scriptures, I can confirm that the Bible is harmonious throughout and accurate to the last detail.

The problem however, as I have noted from a few of the posts; is that it is actually not the infallibility of the original inspired word of God which is in question; but the many 'erroneous' translations which which are extant in the world today.

I find that Young's Analytical Concordance for the Holy Bible an invaluable asset when it come down to the 'root' identification of individual words, plus the Non-denominational Oxford Theocratic Course which I took back in 1960-1963 has given my a grounding which puts just about every other course in the shade.

Alexander

[clark thompson]

• 

From what I understand the manuscripts we have match because they copied them very closely. As for translating the bible no translation is perfect.

[Alexander Winslow]

• 

The infallibility of the Bible as God's inspired Word, is unquestionable. It is merely bad translations and the man-made doctrines of Christendom around which they apply their own versions of scripture to support this. A good concordance such as Young's Analytical Concordance for the Holy Bible, plus a Greek Interlinear;  soon sorts this out.

Alexander