Bible infallible?

by Shawn10538 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Anti-Christ

  I believe that it is true in its basic principles and history but it would be too much to say that it is totally infallible since it was written by humans and copied and recopied numerous times before coming to us.

  Hi greendawn, just a question, it's not an attack, just a question. How do you know what's true and what's not? If it's not infallible how do you know what are basic principles because if the bible can't get it right on the little things how do you know it got it right on the big things?
• 

  found-my-way

  infallible? NO

  useful? to a point

  has some words of wisom? yes

  inspired? hahhahhhhhhahahahahhahaa ..convince me. please.
• 

  Hortensia

  Interesting as a bunch of ancient writings that reveal something about the lives and beliefs of the people who wrote them.
• 

  Shawn10538

  because infallible and fable are mutually exclusive. They are opposites, so your point doesn't make a bit of sense. It is a contradiction in terms.
• 

  Shawn10538

  If it is circular logic then that is proof that the bible is not infallible. It contradicts itself. I dare anybody to say or do a single thing that is not securly grounded in logic. Logic is the end all be all for investigating truth. You cannot even take a step without using and relying upon logic. Can't happen.
• 

  Shawn10538

  If it is circular logic then that is proof that the bible is not infallible. It contradicts itself. I dare anybody to say or do a single thing that is not securly grounded in logic. Logic is the end all be all for investigating truth. You cannot even take a step without using and relying upon logic. Can't happen.
• 

  Shawn10538

  All of these posts are way to reasonable. I was really hoping to get some replies from some real Bible thumpers. I know you are out there! Come out of the closet and tell us why the bible is infallible. Was Job speaking in verse or prose? Come on bible bangers, take my bait!!!
• 

  drew sagan

  Is the Bible infallible?
  
  Personally, I'm drawn toward Carl Barth's position. Wikipedia describes it this way:

  Although Barth's theology rejected German Protestant Liberalism, his theology has usually not found favour with those at the other end of the theological spectrum: conservatives, evangelicals and fundamentalists. His doctrine of the Word of God, for instance, does not proceed by arguing or proclaiming that the Bible must be uniformly historically and scientifically accurate, and then establishing other theological claims on that foundation.
  
  Some evangelical and fundamentalist critics have therefore tended to refer to Barth as "neo-orthodox" because, while his theology retains most or all of the tenets of Christianity, he is seen as rejecting the belief which is a linchpin of their theological system: biblical inerrancy. (It was for this belief that Barth was criticized most harshly by the conservative evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer, who was a student of strident Barthian critic Cornelius Van Til.) Such critics regard proclaiming a rigorous Christian theology without basing that theology on a supporting text that is considered to be historically accurate as a separation of theological truth from historical truth. For his part, Barth would have rebutted that making claims about biblical inerrancy the foundation of theology is to take a foundation other than Jesus Christ, and that our understanding of Scripture's accuracy and worth can only properly emerge from consideration of what it means for it to be a true witness to the incarnate Word, Jesus.
  
  It is entirely possible to view this point of contention between Barthian neo-orthodoxy and evangelical inerrantism as mainly reflecting a centuries-old theological, political geographical divide between Barth's Continental (mainly German) Protestant traditions of disciplined exegesis and ecclesiology inherited from the Reformation on the one hand, and the dichotomous rationalist and emotional strands of thought that bring cyclic periods of violent theological upheaval and subsequent backlashes within churches descended from the British Isles (including most evangelical groupings) on the other.
  
  The relationship between Barth, liberalism and fundamentalism goes far beyond the issue of inerrancy, however. From Barth's perspective, liberalism, as understood in the sense of the 19th century with Friedrich Schleiermacher and Hegel as its leading exponents and not necessarily expressed in any political ideology, is the divinization of human thinking. This, to him, inevitably leads one or more philosophical concepts to become the false God, thus blocking the true voice of the living God. This, in turn, leads to the captivity of theology by human ideology. In Barth's theology, he emphasizes again and again that human concepts of any kind, breadth or narrowness quite beside the point, can never be considered as identical to God's revelation. In this aspect, Scripture is also written human language, expressing human concepts. It cannot be considered per se as identical to God's revelation. However, in His freedom and love, God truly reveals Himself through human language and concepts, with a view toward their necessity in reaching fallen humanity. Thus Barth claims that Christ is truly presented in Scripture and the preaching of the church, echoing a stand expressed in his native Swiss Reformed Church's Helvetic Confession of the 16th century.
  
  In general, Barth stands in the heritage of the Reformation in his wariness of attempts to closely relate theology and philosophy. His approach in that respect is termed "kerygmatic," as opposed to "apologetic." -Wikipedia: Barth, Liberals and Conservatives
• 

  moshe

  My Rabbi refers to the Hebrew scriptures as the historical record of the Jewish people- that is all.