Why Does The Bible Have To Be Infallible To Be Inspired?

Question

The bible was written by men, it often reflects the limited thinking of that age which in today's world would be considred impossible, mythical, ignorant or inhumane. It says many things that are not accurate about history and biology. It was edited, re-edited, over translated and many things get lost or misunderstood. Most bible scholars agree the bible is not infallible (100% free of error)

This does NOT mean that the bible cannot be Divinely inspired. There are parts that clearly reflect Divine and universal wisdom that extends BEYOND, culture, time, history. Even if I am not Christian, there are many passages in the bible I find inspiring.

Then again, I think the song, 'Imagine' by John Lennon shows a touch of Divine Inspiration and "Lord of the Rings" is inspired as well.

My question is, why is it necessary for some Christians to portray the bible as infallible in order to convince people it is Divinely inspired? Can't inspiration and imperfection co-exist?

I'd appreciate if you pondered and answered the question asked instead of trying to do lengthy or defensive arguements on WHY the bible is 100% infallible and accurate. It is an arguement lost a long time ago and the typical points do not outweigh the overwhelming evidence of human tampering and glaring inaccuracies.

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 2

1) It does not. If you accept (as I do) that the authors of the books of the bible were inspired by God (who is most definitely infallible), then you also have to accept that the original texts (known as autographs) are infallible (error-free). Otherwise, they do not arise from divine inspiration, but rather man's own (limited) perception. However, what we have are copies of copies of copies ....etc., copied literally throughout centuries by the hands of uninspired men. Then, even more uninspired men struggle with the task of translating language that is *at least* 1000 years old (Masoretic text) into modern English, when their understanding of these ancient languages is acknowledged to be imperfect. Thus, the bible *is* without a doubt imperfect. *Nevertheless*, it *is* the closest thing that we have to the perfect word of God, and therefore, it is foolish to attempt to question the truth of what is in the bible by anything other than an alternate, scholarly version of the bible.

2) "It says many things that are not accurate about history and biology."
I challenge you to name a single thing contained within the bible that has been *proven* false either by science or history. No need to bring up scientific theories - as a scientist myself (B.S. in Physics), I am aware of their limited longevity.

3) "It was edited, re-edited"
There is sound no evidence of this. It is true, *additions* to the text have been discovered (several, mostly very small additions), but no *editing* (alterations of the text) has been detected of which *I* am aware. Most modern bibles note these additions and/or remove them from the text.

"the overwhelming evidence of human tampering and glaring inaccuracies."
It seems that you have been misinformed concerning the contents of the bible. This is likely because you have not read it. There *is* evidence of tampering (the few dozen additions mentioned previously), but none of inaccuracy of which I am aware. As a scientist, I know of only one questionable verse - that which states that the sun was created on the 4th "day" - and this has an entirely reasonable explanation unless you *insist* on taking the word "day" to mean a 24-hour period based on the rotation of the earth (which is not the only meaning of this word in the original Hebrew).

In other words, e-mail me about supposed inaccuracies, and I will respond in a wholly scientific manner. Once you have learned the truth about these supposed "inaccuracies", you may have a more accepting attitude to the bible - maybe even enough to read it through.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

"Why Does The Bible Have To Be Infallible To Be Inspired?"

It doesn't.

"It says many things that are not accurate about history and biology."

I'd like to know why you would assume that history is inaccurate in the Bible. As far as biology goes, you might want to clarify what you mean by that. If your answer has anything to do with 'unicorns' , I'll know that you never took the time to reference that word; neither by history, nor by philology.

"Most bible scholars agree the bible is not infallible (100% free of error) "

Me too. Not that I am a scholar. I am not. But I pay very close attention to it.

"Then again, I think the song, 'Imagine' by John Lennon shows a touch of Divine Inspiration and "Lord of the Rings" is inspired as well."

I have looked at the words of the song, 'Imagine' by John Lennon, it is only inspiring to those who's hope is spent on things which perish, in my humble opinion.

The Lord of the Rings I has spent much of my reading time on when I was young. Yes, it is inspiring, and I hope that it was an influence upon me to become a Christian. Though not a Roman Catholic like Tolkien was.

"My question is, why is it necessary for some Christians to portray the bible as infallible in order to convince people it is Divinely inspired? Can't inspiration and imperfection co-exist?"

Because they weren't taught well. They have done what many Christians do; they lean upon poor teachers and errant teachings. They set themselves up with tradition, and some cannot think past the obvious. I hope that I have convinced you that we are not all that way.

Answer 4

If you can agree that the Bible is divinely inspired but not infallible, then you open the door to vicious debate over which passages are metaphors, parables, stories, or literal truths. Which parts are mistranslated or edited, and which parts are original intent, and what qualifications do you have to make those calls?

I agree that there are a lot of passages in the Bible that are inspiring, I just don't view it as a product of divine inspiration. That said, you can learn some lessons from reading the Bible, just as you can learn some lessons from reading "The Godfather" and "The Three Musketeers". I don't believe any of them can be viewed as sources of eternal truth, as many Christians seem to hold the Bible.

Answer 5

"My question is, why is it necessary for some Christians to portray the bible as infallible in order to convince people it is Divinely inspired? Can't inspiration and imperfection co-exist?"

Of course they can. Some people find their personal self-image at risk if the beliefs they hold most deeply are not assuredly true. Living in a world where much of what we believe can be called into question is hard for many.

This is, primarily, a Protestant issue, since generally speaking, Protestants deny the value of a tradition. Of course, many Protestants miss the point that happens to be a tradition as well.

Many of us can safely assert the inspiration of the text without it becoming a fetish.

HTH

Charles

Answer 6

If it's the word of God, should it be anything less?

Inspiration for John Lennon did not come from God. The Bible is claimed to be. That's quite a bit of difference.

I do agree with you, it is pretty well known (at least to scholars) to have some degree of editing. Looking at a copy of the Revised Standard Version, you can see the points about variations in the different texts, etc. One section of II Esdras (in the "Apocrypha") is missing almost 100 verses (now found); they are believed to have been deliberately cut because it denies prayer for the dead.

Answer 7

Precisely: Who wants to put trust in a book where no one knows where the errors are? Or for that matter which parts are metaphorical, inspirational or divinely inspired.

On the flip side, who is to say what you find inspirational or think is inspired, actually is? LOTR is a great movie and a decent book series, but Inspired?

Luckily, given the evidence for it, it is nothing more that fiction thinly wrapped around some potential history.

Answer 8

That you're talking rubbish. 1.2 Timothy.3:17.States the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God. 2.Jesus said "I am the way,the truth and the life"John 14:6. 3.Apart from Judas's suicide,the disciples weren't getting violently killed. The remainder of the question is so garbled as to be incomprehensible,apart from commenting that Christ was crucified not sacrificed at the stake. Try and present the question succinctly,then you may receive reasoned replies.

Answer 9

Who says the bible is infallible? Especially when it was written by man? Humans are imperfect and flawed so how can humans with these traits write a book that is perfect? I hardly think that the bible is perfect, yeah it is a great collection of stories but nothing more.

Answer 10

inspiration and imperfection can be together... but then you cant expect me to believe the bible word for word if its IMPERFECT.. because people are IMPERFECT...

how can i take it literal if something is IMPERFECT?

how can one person force me to believe that i should be against homosexuality and abortion... based on a flawed book?

i am a theist.. and i strongly believe in god... and i do take somethings from religion that i was taught as a child, but a BIG chuck of it is removed from my mind, because besides loving one another and not passing judgment upon others, the bible is pretty much an IMPERFECT book.


/*/*

you know i just thought of something else.. lets say for the sake of argument.. that god did send some sort of message to people about this religion...
but as some of us know the bible has its share of flaws, which could be attributed to the fact that man is the one who wrote this...
well if the bible is distorted because of man... then its not god's original message anymore is it?
if the bible has flaws its the result of human error... not god... how can one worship something that isn't god's true message but our own fudge ups?