by wearewatchingyouman 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
"The Book of Jeremiah is now one-seventh longer than the one that appears in some of the 2,000-year-old manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some verses, including ones containing a prophecy about the seizure and return of Temple implements by Babylonian soldiers, appear to have been added after the events happened."
How about that quote LOL
wow! I wonder if the WTB$ is gonna ignore this or what's more certain to occur is that if it picks up press, just undermine these scholars finds by saying its a trap from satan or just apostate lies designed to trick us or, mypersonal favorite, we have to wait on Jehovah. I am sure they will use one of their tried-and-true tactics. They'll just reach in their little bag of pre-approved GB responses and see what comes out. They are also not taking into account that the bible scribes sometimes edited the bible, they added passages and took some out in an attempt to acheive more "cohesiveness" I guess is the best word. Like the story of Lilith, Adam's first wife. So no one can really say with unquestionable certainty what was originally in the books of the bible. It's so sad that so may people hang on to this book's every word and live by it, and also die by it when it is all but infallible.
You may be confusing inerrant with infalliable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
and this view:
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
This is a summary of the positions of several on how we should look at the books of the Bible and their inspiredness. What do you think? Look at these four in your groups and decide which one you would be willing to defend. Be sure to talk about why. We will ask for a group response at the end of your 10 min. discussion.
Catholic position - Errorless collection of errorless books
Modern critical scholarship - Error-filled collection of error-filled books
Historical Protestant view - Possible error in collection, errorless books Explanation - books were pulled together by the church - the church is not errorless, on God's Word is (sola scriptura).
Special Protestant view - The Holy Spirit worked in the collectors of the canon that we have to guide them to the right books to include, those that were inspired by God in the first place.
BIBLE STUDY
1. Inerrancy vs. Infallibility
Inerrancy = exempt from error
Infallible = can mean "incapable of error" OR "will not fail to achieve the goals and purposes which God intended for it."
A look at Paul Feinberg's definition of inerrancy
Inerrancy mean that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.
Does this mean that our versions of the Bible (NIV, KJV, NASB) are inerrant?
Misunderstandings of inerrancy
a. It does not demand strict adherence to the rules of grammar. b. It does not exclude the use of either figures of speech (hypebole) or literary genre (poetry). c. It does not demand historical or semantical precision. d. It does not demand the technical or observational language of modern science. e. It does not require verbal exactness in the citation of the OT by the NT. f. It does not demand that the sayings of Jesus contain the exact words of Jesus, only the exact voice (i.e. indirect discourse). g. It does not guarantee the exhaustive comprehensiveness of any single account or of combined accounts. h. It does not demand the infallibility of inerrancy of the non-inspired sources used by biblical writers.
How can all this be true? God is sovereign. He rules over all these things. If He superintended the writing of Scripture (II Peter 1:21) then this can be true.
2. What are some ways you can think of that these statements about inerrancy could be viewed-- positively or negatively? a. Too narrow - God's not concerned about the exactness of His word as much as He is the message. Inerrancy stifles the power of the message of redemption. b. Too broad - Leaving the door open this far is too far. You cannot say that these statements are true. You would compromise the truth of the whole Bible.
3. A look at why this book has to be true
a. John 17:17 - Truth b. John 13:34,35 - Following Jesus commands shows the world that we are His disciples - How can we follow commands if they're not true? c. I Cor. 15:12-19 - If it is not true that Christ has not been raised, then we are to be pitied. We're stupid to believe!! |
 |
|
@PSSac- pretty sure the JW position is that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible....
Infallibility, from Latin origin ('in', not + 'fallere', to deceive), is a term with a variety of meanings related to knowing truth with certainty.
When a statement, teaching, or book is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following:
When it can be shown that prophecy was inserted after the event took place, to deceive people into believing that the text was from God, said book is no longer infallible.... i.e something that can be safely relied on to be completely trustworthy and sure, because it can be proven false...
I fail to see your point... am I missing something? Could you please elaborate...
+=shameless bump....
Inerrant means without errors, so the bible would have to be without any error whatsoever.
Infalliable would mean that the bible doesn't fail in it's goal of showing How God has worked in the history of the Hebrews and beyond.
The bible makes no claims to being anything other than the writings of inspired men and even gives warnings that man has tried to alter it and to test all that we are taught.
Why?
Because we interpret things according to not only our expereinces but the "times" we live in and as such, when some part of the bible is corrected, it is the interpretation of such that is being corrected, UNLESS the correction is of a concrete event or place.
