A question about the Bible.?

Question

If the Bible is infallible, by whose authority were the various books of the Bible selected in an infallible manner? By whose authority were the infallible translations made and approved?


Remember, there is no definitive collection of books in the canon of the Bible. There have been many different selections of books over the ages that have been used and approved by various human groups. Perhaps you are using the selection of books common to most Protestants, or perhaps you are using the selection favored by Roman Catholics. How do you know these are divinely approved selections? Recognizing that NONE of the original Biblical texts are available, and that each book has multiple variants from which to choose, how do you know that the translators of whatever version you prefer selected the proper variants or combinations of variantsand then properly translated them?By what authority were these decisions made and the final product approved?Are you just hoping that they got it right?

Answer 1

I would say that I hold Christan morality close to my heart but believe in God in a different aspect. Here it is; its says in the bible that what man touches is followed by sin, so the bible must have fault seeing how the counsel of nisea constructed the bible. Everyone should be very well aware that there are very important gospels that were left out of the bible. This was done for a reason. The leader of that time want people to think and act a certain way. By leaving important gospels out it can not be divine, but it holds a lot of truth. It's like this; you are putting a puzzle together and some of the pieces are missing. When you look at the puzzle with missing pieces you will see a different picture than the one with all of its pieces.

Answer 2

It would be interesting to see where you got your information about the Bible. For example, the multiple variations of one book. Incredibly people seem to think that an "anything goes" attitude abounded in the early man.

First, the Old Testament. Unless you understand the extreme measures cultures without writen words go to to preserve, word for word, history you'll never realize it's not like modern day where we rely on the written word and get sloppy with memory. It was so important that the words of the Old Testament be exactly the same at each repetition that anyone who changed them would be shunned. When the words were written down the same exactness was (and is) expected.

Second, the multiple variations of the books you refer to are nothing more than differences in translation. The original texts were so widely circulated in the first century any changes would have been seen immediately and the perpetrator exposed. The translations have been made by people who are attempting to be as accurate as that activity will allow. Try translating French or German to English in present day and you'll learn quickly how difficult it is. The fact that all the translations are essentially the same with minor variations is a testament to the validity of the material.

Third, when the Bible was put together in it's present form it was done with much deliberation and by people who were careful to be sure they made no mistakes. It was not dissimilar to scientist colaborating on a paper. Each evaluated the evidence of the book against the known history (yes many written records that have been lost to us were available then) and against the other books. There was no, "gee, I like this one let's stick it in."

Answer 3

The canon of the (Torah) Old Testament was finalized during the time of Ezra after the Babylonian captivity, around 540 BC.
The canon of the New Testament was finalized around 325AD by the Council of Nicean.

Either group made "random" choices, but looked back over existing manuscripts, traditions, earlier scholars, etc. in making their choices. For example, the Nicean fathers looked at list of expected books that had been complied by Euberius around 110AD, and other after him. They also looked at existing collections of Christian writings to see which books were in common usage already. The ones that "made it" were the ones arleady in use by the majority of churches. In fact, the earliest collection of Christian writings to match the current cannon dates from between 115 and 125 AD. All manuscripts before that were more limited, such as only the gospels, or only the writings of Paul, or all the book of Revelation.

Christian believe that the same God who was able to guide men to write the books was also able to guide men to compile the right books.

Oh - and no one I know of claims that any of the translations are "infalliable".

Answer 4

The Bible is not infallible. It is "reliable", but the practice of pointing at a single flaw in one passage to try to discredit the rest of the book is ridiculous. (That would be like telling you that you forgot to spell "they're", "their" or "there" correctly, and therefore your entire point is not worth reading.)

Your attempt to assess the Bible as a whole is also flawed. It's a collection of hundreds of writings over a very long period of time, and the best you can do is evaluate each individual contribution one by one. The person who contributed the "Song of Deborah" in Numbers had no impact on the person who contributed the book of Esther, and vice versa. They were two different people with two different stories to tell.

Answer 5

Nothing is infalliable... especially in this case. Men wrote the Bible and Men make mistakes. who is to say that the pen-holders didn't skew the truth a little even if not intentionally??? I have trouble basing my entire faith on a book that was written thousands of years ago and only by men and that contradicts itself several times. Also, how many versions of the bible are out there???

Ok, it's a good story and a nice guide to live by, but not the basis of my entire life.

Answer 6

I constantly have to remind people that the Hebrew Bible did not emerge, fully formed, in a single volume. It started as a number of oral traditions that were later written down to preserve them during a time of political instability. They weren't written all at once, otherwise "the Prophets" would not have been able to talk about "the Law". They weren't a "book" either. Bound books didn't exists in the age of scrolls. And they weren't all bound together. A scroll that big would be unmanageable! (The scrolls of Samuel and Kings were split in two to make them more manageable.) Imagine a rack of scrolls of various sizes, that was what we would come to call the Bible.

The Torah (the first five books) was finalized during the time of the Prophets. The canon of the Prophets was finalized during the time of the Writings and the Apocrypha. A momentous event occured around 250 BCE when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek for the Jews living in Egypt. Everyone else in "the world" spoke Greek, so Gentiles could read them if they desired.

It wasn't till about 90 CE before a council of rabbis met to determine the final, official list of inspired books. They discovered that there were several books in the Greek Septuagint that did not have surviving Hebrew equivalents. They decided not to include these uncertainly derived books.

But no Christian attended that meeting. Their "Bible" WAS the Septuagint. That's the version quoted in the New Testament. They accepted the entire Septuagint as their "Old Testament".

As the return of Christ was delayed beyond their expectation, Christians became concerned that their eyewitnesses to Jesus were dying. A few of them composed biographies of Jesus based on what was remembered to keep it all from being lost. People began to consider whether these books were also "inspired". Some of Paul's old letters were collected, copied and passed around as well. Lists of favorites were composed by various prominent Christian leaders and intellectuals, none in perfect agreement.

But a final decision could not be made until after Christianity was legalized in 312. Christians were beginning to have a measurable effect on Roman society as they feuded among themselves over developing doctrine. Emperor Constantine had enough and took the step of "converting" to give himself the authority to pull the bishops into council and settle all the issues once and for all. That included the canon of the New Testament.

Some may wonder what business a secular ruler had convening a religious council. But up till then, the Emperor was regarded as a religious authority, even a diety sometimes. The Christian distinction might have been lost on him. In any case, it was the bishops who had to make the decisions, there was no other authority to make the decisions.

They considered the content and perceived authorship of each work and decided which ones were authentic and useful for preserving the faith. Some "gospels" and "letters" were silly, pious adventure stories with no spiritually edifying purpose. Others portrayed a mysterious, allegorical Jesus who advocated an individualistic path of ever more obscure "understanding" of "secret knowledge" about how God and the material world "really" work. These didn't harmonize with the idea of a Jesus who came humbly into the world to serve and sacrifice. So they were rejected. Some books were suspected because their authorship was not certain (Hebrews, for example), others for their ambiguous content (Revelation). Ultimately, with the hopeful guidance of the Holy Spirit, they made a decision. A few popular books (like the Shepherd of Hermas) didn't make it in. But no orthodox Christian denomination has disagreed with the final list since it was set.

The next decision came up when Jerome was asked to make a decent Latin translation for Romans who no longer understood Greek. He discovered the difference between the Septuagint and the Hebrew scripture and had to make a decision. He chose to translate the Greek-only books, but he put them in a section by themselves with a note about the problem and named it "Apocrypha" ("hidden"). That's where they stayed for the next millennium.

In the 16th Century, Martin Luther attempted to reform some serious doctrinal and administrative abuses that had crept into the Church. He was excommunicated for his trouble, so he had to find a way to be a Christian without the approval of Rome. He found it ironically in Romans, a verse that stated that faith alone, and no human effort, was required to justify oneself before God. This, he posited, yanked the rug out from under the notion of intercessory prayer and ritual. It was all between the individual and God. Since the New Testament necessarily predated the council that canonized it, he also found a connection to Christ that could short-circuit the historical trail between the Roman Church and the Apostolic Age. Everything would depend on what the Bible said.

But there was a problem. There were other passages in the Bible that seemed to contradict Luther's contention against the efficacy of works and intercession. Several of these passages were in the Apocrypha, which was written at a time when Jewish theology was developing under the influence of some Greek ideas. The obvious solution was to reject these books once and for all. (There were a few other troublesome works, such as the Letter of James, but there was no justification for tossing those.)

Naturally, Rome embraced the books for the very reasons Luther opposed them and they were definitively included at the subsequent Council of Trent (which also belatedly reformed some of the worst abuses Luther complained about.)

Authority is a hard thing to determine, especially since Jesus didn't leave a hint that he wouldn't be back right away, much less appoint a committee to make decisions about which scriptures to accept or reject. Much as it may pain some Protestants, there is an element of "Tradition" in the determination of the canon of sacred scripture. But the decisions were thoughtful and sincere, made by the acknowledged authorities of the time. Acceptance or rejection of their decisions is a matter of faith.

As for translations, we don't have the originals, so we must depend on copies, hopefully as close to the originals as possible, but scholars disagree on which sources are most correct. The best we can do is to examine all the evidence, relying on conscientious scholarship to keep all of our experts "honest".

Answer 7

The Living Word of God, even though I have not read the Old Testament I have knowledge of it through the Spirit of Truth, and the Holy Ghost.

At the age of about 40 was the first time I ever read a bible, but the Words that Jesus spoke had always been in my heart, I recognized the Words when I saw them, as words that I had always been aware of and was just waiting to be introduced to them once again.

Answer 8

Another good argument. I am sick of having to go on Blind Faith for everything. As a child, I did. I cannot as an adult which is probably why I have questioned the beliefs I was raised with. I still believe in God but I do not know if the Bible is as definitive as a lot of people believe it to be.

Answer 9

The answer from "dewcoons" is perfect.
You have to learn that you mast not follow the letter of the Bible but you mast follow the spirit of the Bible.
Remember God is Love

Answer 10

Research the Council of Nicaea. You will find that this was done by astute learned debate and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. False texts were rejected, not removed.