Do you believe the Bible is inerrant in the original writings, and infallible?

Question

This is more Kaleo stuff. Personally, I think the claim of infallibility is a warning sign that something is wrong with a theology.

Answer 1

I believe the basic message of Gods plan for mankind and its relationship to him is infallable. However, do I believe every word written is infallable...NO.

Answer 2

Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym — BEE — will help you remember these).



The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.



We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.



The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident.



The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.



The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers.



The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again.



Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.

Answer 3

The bible was originally written in a couple of different languages. When translating from one language to another it is possible to lose some of the writers original intentions and meanings. Perhaps this is why there are so many different translations of the bible. When reading the bible try to go pass the words to the heart of the matter. Include history, culture, vernacular, traditions of the people, the writers state, mostly the HS. This website should help b/c it has many translations and languages. In most cases I have found it best to keep the original translation to my language as possible (even then there are missed used words).

Answer 4

There is no inerrant text of The Christian Bible in existance today. All we have are copies of copies of translations of copies. The original texts which were dictated(inspired) to the original scribes have been lost for at least 1500 yrs or more...it is not known when or where the last of the original texts were lost.

The "Dead Sea Scrolls" are copies of works that ,in part, are from original writings... but are still copies... even though they are 2000+ yrs old there-about

The Word and Will of God can still be found in most of the "modern" (from 1600 A.D. or so) texts. But only by the leading of The Holy Spirit.

The Salvation Message is intact because it is carried in the hearts of those of The Church and written text is not required for it to survive.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. We know that the books of the Bible have gone through several translations from the original languages they were first penned in. Each of those languages had different sized vocabularies meaning translations could not be exact. In addition to this you need to remember that several books were left out of the official earliest Bible (result of votes at council) then the cannon was first set. Then the protestant Bible left additional books out.

The message can be meaningful without having to attribute a rule of infallibility to it.

Answer 6

"Personally, I think the claim of infallibility is a warning sign that something is wrong with a theology."

Completely 100% agree

Answer 7

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant in the original writings, and infallible? you got it!

Answer 8

The Bible is not inerrant nor infallible. It was never intended to be represented by the word of God by those who wrote it. The Bible disagrees with itself in several places. Therefore it can't be perfect.

Answer 9

No I don't believe that the Bible is infallible, what do you think I am a crazy Evangelical ditto head?

Answer 10

yes its original was true in my opinion but there is not around now.only in closed doors may be.it is now everywhere as it should be but wrong. a little note: bible is too perfect for humankind.homo sapiens can not obey these rules.