-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you believe in the scriptures being Infallable?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
I'd be wondering if anyone on this board believes any text in any language is infallible...
INFAL'LIBLENESS, n. [from infallible.] The quality of being incapable of error or mistake; entire exemption from liability to error; inerrability. No human being can justly lay claim to infallibility. This is an attribute of God only.
Perhaps you could tell me what Bible text
In any language you believe is infallible? What text do you believe is without any error or mistakes and that has entire exemption from errors?
Do we all then hold to the same meaning for the terms infallibility/imerrancy?
Just asking, as there seems to be a big debate in Evangelcial circles not between those holding to limited and compared to full views on this subkect!
Really? that would be new
Think just to ask how one defines those terms would not be false accusonng anyone here though....
I was talking about admins worrying about false accusations being made around here as if anyone should already know to be careful of them. Such would be a new idea on this board. I get falsely accused of all kinds of things on this board about every day.
We seem to be able to give many times what we thinks others believe, without really giving what they believe in!
Jordan, your KJVO heresy has caused you to live in confusion and error rather than in liberty and grace.
Every bible text and competent translation teaches us that the History of the bible is infallible history, the promises of the bible are infallible promises, and the prophecy of the bible is infallible prophecy.
Your problem is that you believed the lies your pastor told you, that the KJV is the only inspired, perfect translation of the bible. Unfortunately your pastor has no evidence to support his lie.
God's word, the bible, tells us the truth of any matter is established on the testimony of two or three others. Please post two or three facts, from the bible, that prove the KJV is the only infallible English translation.
And Jordan, you claim to be a "bible believer" but in reality you don't believe the bible. Any bible. You even deny the KJV.
The bible says that any bible that is able to make you wise unto salvation is the inspired scripture. The difference between you and me is that I believe what the bible says and you deny what the bible says.
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
No. Definitions may differ, but the end result is the same. No promise of God will ever fail to come to pass.
That is true, but there seems to be a big push to water it down to where the Bible is only true in areas concenring salvation/doctrines, and some even accomodate Jesus Himself to merely accepting 'errors" regarding genesis and Adam/Eve as being historically true!No. Definitions may differ, but the end result is the same. No promise of God will ever fail to come to pass.
We have accepted teachers/commentators who seem to be so willing to sacrifice the Bible as being all true in order to appease current understanding and cultural norms...
I believe the Byzantine textform is without error of fact. But even the Alexandrian textform, which I believe to be inferior to the Byzantine textform, is without error of fact. There are variances of how those facts are expressed, variants in spellings, variants in word order, etc., but the facts they present are still true and correct.
That is a good position to hold with, as believe that God reserved to us in the MT/TR/CT themselves His very words unto us today...
One can hold to a preferred view regarding with textual basis is closest to the originals, and which translation is closest to those, but not be a KJVO, nor CT/MT/TR only either!
Wouldn't such a statement fall under the category of provocative?
But wouldn't the abandonment of the historically held belief in an inerrant bible disqualify a person from being a "conservative evangelical?"
I suppose that would depend on how you define "all true."
For instance, I have noticed in the past couple years that my study habits have deteriorated and I am starting to lose the ability to focus on a subject to exegete every nuance of meaning. So, in my old age I have gone back to school! I am presently enrolled in three classes at Dallas Theological Seminary. Genesis. John. And a refresher in Bible Hermeneutics.
I was delighted to discover the Professor teaching Genesis, Dr. James Allman, Professor of Old Testament Studies and Hebrew at DTS, believes the same as I do about Genesis.
And that is that verse 1 of chapter 1 is a title giving a summary of the entire event, and verse 2 is the first verse of the actual narrative expressing the condition of the earth at the time the narrative begins, with verse 3 beginning to tell the story.
It is imperative for any man, to be a teacher of the bible, to know the languages the bible was inspired in. In this case, Hebrew. Without a knowledge of the Hebrew language the teacher (so-called) would not know that verse two starts with a disjunctive clause which means that verse 2 is not an outgrowth of verse 1, either chronologically or logically. This is a standard methodology of Hebrew when recounting a narrative. First a summary (verse 1) followed by a statement of conditions at the beginning of the narrative (verse 2) then the narrative itself (verses 3 and following).
But some Christians (especially of the KJVO variety) would accuse me of apostasy for not holding to their (incorrect) understanding of Genesis 1. And that flawed understanding is based on their inability to properly exegete the Hebrew text.
So, which understanding is "all truth?" What the Hebrew actually says, or what a person thinks it says because of the necessity of studying only the English translation because of their lack of academic ability to exegete the Hebrew?
Unfortunately, in today's "my way or the highway" methodology "all true" has become a matter of ill-informed opinion rather than a solid understanding of the exegetical truth of the passage.
See the problem?
By the way. Good discussion. Thanks for jumping in. This is the type of discussion that makes the Baptist Board so valuable.
Exactly. One position (KJVO or TRO) is based on uninformed opinion. The other position (mine
) is based on a scholarly examination of the text, its transmission, and the text-critical criteria used to arrive at an informed conclusion. 
There is an old saying that states 'a chain is only as strong as its weakest link'. Now, carry that statement over into this conversation. If I believe one verse, even one teeny tiny verse, is fallible, then how can I believe the rest? Which other biblical accounts such as the gospel(crucifixion, burial and resurrection), Noah's ark, David killing Goliath, Saul's seeing the bright Light, John the Baptist coming in the flesh, would then also be compromised?
I hold to biblical inerrancy and infallibilty, as I believe every word to be inspired hy the Spirit of God.
I hold to biblical inerrancy and infallibilty, as I believe every word to be inspired hy the Spirit of God.
Yep, the opposite leads to guys like Rob Bell you says that even if he learned Jesus did not come into this world via a virgin birth or that Christ was not divine it would not shake his faith.
The absurdity of liberals.