For Christians, is the Bible infallible?

Originally posted by Joseph_Kerr
YES ELOHIEM IS PLURAL....I'm not freakin brain dead.... BUT whenever Elohiem is refered to the God of Israel it is surrounded by context in the singular verb. Since you are an expert on Hebrew you would know that.

The Bible itself is infallible, but mankind's interpretations of it can be flawed. For that matter translations that are loose or tampered with could also have problems

Originally posted by Julie
The Bible itself is infallible, but mankind's interpretations of it can be flawed. For that matter translations that are loose or tampered with could also have problems

so how are we suposed to know whose interpretation is correct?

Originally posted by Julie
The Bible itself is infallible, but mankind's interpretations of it can be flawed. For that matter translations that are loose or tampered with could also have problems

Yet so much of it is outdated and unsuitable to the modern world. It is, as a book, incapable of evolving, and thus you have people trying to impose archaic rules on modern society.

* the Bible is NOT infallible... why? because there are contradictions... don't get me wrong, folks... what are the contradictions? example: the word of Satan contradicts the word of God...

* word of God:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 2:17

* word of Satan:

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"
Genesis 3:4

* you see, there are contradictions because the wholeness of the Bible contains words of God, Christ, prophets, apostles, Satan, Pharisees, angels of God, demons, etc.

* but what is infallible?

"All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them."
Proverbs 8:8

* the word/s from God... 😉

People put too much value in infallibility.

The bible is just a book; what matters in life is not books, but people.

not people, but ideas....like stoning.

Originally posted by Alliance
not people, but ideas....like stoning.

What do you got against stoning? 😆 As long as you don't drive, what is wrong with it. 😆

Originally posted by peejayd
* the Bible is NOT infallible... why? because there are contradictions... don't get me wrong, folks... what are the contradictions? example: the word of Satan contradicts the word of God...

* word of God:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 2:17

* word of Satan:

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"
Genesis 3:4

* you see, there are contradictions because the wholeness of the Bible contains words of God, Christ, prophets, apostles, Satan, Pharisees, angels of God, demons, etc.

* but what is infallible?

"All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them."
Proverbs 8:8

* the word/s from God... 😉

Can you explain:

"Thou shalt not kill"

And

"No man shall layeth with another man like he would layeth with a woman. For that is detestable and punishable by death"

And

"For if a woman sells her flesh for riches, she shall be cast to death by stoning"

?

* Old Testament most of the time is the literal sense of the spiritual sense being introduced by the New Testament... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* Old Testament most of the time is the literal sense of the spiritual sense being introduced by the New Testament... 😉

Then why the need for both?

I am christian, and I do not believe the bible is infallible. First of all, its primary objective is to teach the word of god and the righteous ways to people so that they may live a good life and eventually get to heaven. I don't see how anyone could agree that the bible is infallible because:

1. We don't have the original books of mark, matthew, luke, and john so there is no way of proving how much they were altered.

2. Even if the books stand uncorrected as they were, we are still looking at 4 books that were wrote about Jesus after his death, so the details could be a tad flawed from what really happened.

3. It is not even known if these books were written by their respected authors or supposed authors. There is no evidence indicating who wrote these books. All that is known is a bishop of the early church assimilated these 4 books together for the new testament because the teachings presented were supposed to be the best out of all the other gospels, mainly becasue the others such as the gospel fo judas are gnostic gospels. Let me just add real quick that the gospel of judas is nothign more than another gnostic gospel and should not be looked at as a possible scenario for the final days of Christ. Gnostics sought to look for the lighter side of things and put positive twists on events as in the gospel fo judas rather than show the difference between wrong and right.

Now with that being said, no one can prove or disprove at this point that Jesus didn't do the thigns the bible says he did. So for me, i see the bible as a way to improve my life on a daily basis as well as help me worship a god that i dont know exists. But its fien for me and I do believe he exists and if I'm wrong in the end, well then i just made a mistake and everyone makes mistakes.

correction i do believe the bible is infallible, or the rest of that explanantion makes no sense

wait no, i dont believ the bible is infallible which means i believe the bible is fallible, yes, thats it 😄, ok its definietly 11 oclock at night and this whole double negative thing is like confusing me right now, I'm not running on all 4 cylinders right now 😖leep:

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then why the need for both?

* the history, proof and prophesy of the Old Testament was fulfilled by the New... 😉

Originally posted by peejayd
* the history, proof and prophesy of the Old Testament was fulfilled by the New... 😉

I don't believe so. 🙂 That is like saying that the first part of "Gone With The Wind" agrees with the last part, therefore, "Gone With The Wind" is the word of God. 🙄

What peejayd is trying to say (at I think this is what he is trying to say) is that without knowing the OT prophecies there is no way of knowing that Jesus is the Messiah that makes the new covenant. It is important that we read the OT to understand how Jesus fulfilled the OT because this is how we can proove Jesus as Christ. Without the OT it would be Jesus showing up and proclaiming himself the Savior of world but leaving the questions:
Why do we need a Savior?
Who sent the Savior?
How do we know he is the Savior?
How is he different than us?
What must he do as Savior?
Who is he saving?
The OT answers all these questions so that we can know who the Savior is. Therefore, the OT is required to complete the entire story.

Originally posted by Nellinator
What peejayd is trying to say (at I think this is what he is trying to say) is that without knowing the OT prophecies there is no way of knowing that Jesus is the Messiah that makes the new covenant. It is important that we read the OT to understand how Jesus fulfilled the OT because this is how we can prove Jesus as Christ. Without the OT it would be Jesus showing up and proclaiming himself the Savior of world but leaving the questions:
Why do we need a Savior?
Who sent the Savior?
How do we know he is the Savior?
How is he different than us?
What must he do as Savior?
Who is he saving?
The OT answers all these questions so that we can know who the Savior is. Therefore, the OT is required to complete the entire story.

The problem is the misuse of the word proof.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem is the misuse of the word proof.

Your right there is no proof of the events, but the different tribes found in the bible are consistent with archaeological finds.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Your right there is no proof of the events, but the different tribes found in the bible are consistent with archaeological finds.

I am not saying that the bible is all lies. All I am saying is that if you talk about prophecy, you can't talk about proof, because there is none.