Does the Bible have the infallible words of God?
Posted by | Posted in Religion Debates
photo taken from wordpress.com
Does the Bible have the infallible words of God?
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
We just installed a new spellcheck feature. While you are typing, all words that are underlined in red could be misspellings.
lol! totally right on! 
Yes, every single word.
What's sad is that I think the only logical purpose of the Bible is one that I've found from South Park. The whole moral behind the show is that the Bible was created to have stories that have morals we should live by. I guess the founders of the religion probably knew that throughout the years, man would change the religion. If you look at the Bible, I think of it as a collection of stories that have morals that anyone can learn from, based on any religion.
Sure, religious figures can change the religion all they want, but they can't change the Bible.
If you believe that people haven't tampered with what is and is not in the Bible, then I encourage you to look up the council of Nicaea.
Yes it is the infallible, inerrant Word of God.
That's why the Bible has different versions. All people have to do is get the original.
The council of Nicaea WAS the "original."
No it wasn't. The Council of Nicea met to clarify what texts were already considered part of the Word of God. The Bible was written and already being followed MANY years before the council ever met.
The Old Testament was yes.
No, the New Testament was already written as well. The books within the NT were written at different times ranging from about 45AD to 95AD. The council met at 325 AD simply to confirm which books were ALREADY considered part of the Word of God. The books within it were already written and circulated among the churches long before this. The "bible" might not have been compiled in the format that we know of, but each book within it was already written and considered to be Scripture and already being followed as such.
Let me get that part straight: an authoritative body of ministers decides what books are the word of god and that makes it:
1) infallible
2) God's words
The critique of that has been around for about 200-300 years by now. Perhaps you've heard of Thomas Paine.
They primarily rejected books that they felt wouldn't be included. Not decided which books would be continue to be used.
No, you don't have it straight. The body of ministers did nothing to make it infallible or God's Word. As I already said, the body that met just confirmed to the church which books were ALREADY infallible and the Word of God. What makes the books that way was the fact that God inspired the original authors to write the original manuscripts. The men at the council of Nicea had nothing to do with any of that.
Yes, people were trying to claim there were books that were inspired by God which were not. This started to cause controversy so the council met so they could clarify once for all which books were inspired and which were not. Again, the books that were included had always been considered to be so, they didn't just start to, at this time, consider them such. In fact Peter in one of his epistles refers to the writings of Paul as "Scripture" which shows they were considered Scripture when written, not years later.
Then perhaps you can explain why God seems so confused.
There's still no evidence being presented that the original manuscripts were composed by divine influence or even of divine intent. Or that they carry markings of original authorship and thus a means of determining their authenticity of origin as a test of their veracity. Even rejecting that, there's a good deal of strangeness that's left in the Bible which conflicts with itself.
It's mostly just a collection of stories being chosen in a particular way, by rejecting some and administering others, to accord a certain existing institution (the Empire of Rome at the time) with more power. Talk to a Catholic cardinal or priest sometime and they'll tell you for the most part not to take it too seriously and literally as a measure of the commands of god upon his people.
From Genesis Chapter 1
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
From Genesis Chapter 2
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Hmmm. Looks like the bible contradicts itself within the first 5 pages. That's not a good sign for infallibility…
Nor has there been evidence that they it was not divinely inspired. There has been many attempts over the centuries to disprove the word of God and instead there has been much evidence, both archeological as well as manuscript evidence to prove they were written when and by whom they claim to have been. Historians and archeologists have actually used it successfully to find proof of peoples and places that were written about in the Bible.
While we obviously disagree as to whether or not those writings were inspired, when reading the texts that they wrote and seeing the prophecies within that actually came true I have no trouble believing it to be so. When studying the Word of God as a whole you find that it really does not contradict itself as some try to claim. Any text can be taken out of context to try and make it sound contradictory.
Genesis 2 is talking about the same events as in Chapter 1, chapter 1 gives the order, chapter 2 gives more content or details. Chapter 2 is not saying "when" God formed the animals but that he brought the animals he had formed to Adam to be named. Some translations even translate it God "had formed" the beasts of the field.
Again, you can look for explanations of contradictions and you desire to, or you can assume it to contradict itself. You will not like my answers because you are determined to believe the contradiction, however the explanation is plausible and as such explains the supposed contradiction.
I am not going to get into a verse by verse discussion on this. Those who want to believe it will, those who do not, will not.
I do not choose my positions or beliefs based on what I desire to be true. I know that wanting something to be true doesn't mean it necessarily is. It's tough to look at things at face value and try to be honest and objective in guarding them. But the only way to be honest and strong in your beliefs (without willful ignorance) is to be your own worst critic.
Define prophet in the classical Jewish sense and then consider whether that has anything to do with "truth". Much less anything to do with events that have yet to transpire at the time of their writing.
No.
Why?
It was written by Man, not God, and we all know how Men (and Women) love to embellish the truth!
We Humans are not perfect, and we will never be perfect, and that is why we can never trust what another Human declares as the "God's honest truth" . . .
That is just my not-so-humble opinion.
Yes, the Bible is the infallible words of God + human error.
Claiming that there is not proof that they were not divinely inspired is not in itself proof. Burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who claim it is divinely inspired.
You must prove to me that God indeed had a hand in the bible, if only because you say he did. Prove it, apply the scientific method: your hypothesis is that God gave divine inspiration towards the writing of the bible. Prove your hypothesis. I demand evidence.
True True, I like. I don't feel that the bible is infallible and inerrant, because it was written down by men. I believe the original scriptures of the bible were inspired; however, I do not believe it has remained unchanged till this day.
I like this too. I believe the current bible is not infallible, however I do believe it was inspired upon creation, before being changed over 2000 years.
There has NEVER been a time when God has been or will ever be confused! Lori is correct about the Council at Nicea. They simply got together to confirm to the church the current Canon of Scripture we already have. YES….the current Bible we have is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. See 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Word of God was ALREADY God breathed (inspired) long before the Council at Nicea.
Preach it sister!!