Infallible Word of God?

[Salty]

NOTE: This is NOT a discussion about the King James Only -
If you want to go in that direction - you can always start a new thread.

in·fal·li·ble
/inˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective

• 1.incapable of making mistakes or being wrong:

So should we describe the Bible we currently use as infallible?
Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?
If just one verse is wrong - do we "throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?

Open for discussion

 

[McCree79]

NOTE: This is NOT a discussion about the King James Only -
If you want to go in that direction - you can always start a new thread.

in·fal·li·ble
/inˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective

• 1.incapable of making mistakes or being wrong:

So should we describe the Bible we currently use as infallible?
Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?
If just one verse is wrong - do we "throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?

Open for discussion

The Chicago Statment applies to word to the orginals, which we do not have. We do not have a perfect translation that I feel comfortable calling error free. Of course being a translation, even if we had the orginals, we would not have an infallible translation since man is capable of making a mistake. Based on the definition infallible, an infallible translation is impossible do to the imperfection of man.

As far as the voice of God goes, I beleive we have several translations that teach us effectively the doctrines of God and other doctrines, such as eschatology and salvation. While they may all include translation errors, they present the voice of God in a manner that is without error in overall teaching of doctrine.

Every version is fallible. But most of our major ones still are God's word.

No, we should not describe an English Bible as infallible. Except maybe the ESV....since it is the Elect Standard Version. Just kidding.

As far as
"Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?"

That is the nature of translation. But overall, we have lost no doctrine. And we still have the accurate voice of God, even though we do not have the very words of God (exact words of the original).

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

Infallibility has nothing to do with translation. The term applies to what the bible teaches. "Infallible" is a reference to the fact that the teachings of the bible will never fail ("fail" and "infallible" are based on the same root word).

The history of the bible is infallible history.

The promises of the bible are infallible promises.

The prophecy of the bible is infallible prophecy.

They will never fail - never proven to be in error.

 

[Salty]

No, we should not describe an English Bible as infallible. Except maybe the ESV....since it is the Elect Standard Version. Just kidding.

Now - this is really good!

As far as
"Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?"

That is the nature of translation. But overall, we have lost no doctrine. And we still have the accurate voice of God, even though we do not have the very words of God (exact words of the original).

The reason I bring me up is that many will say that "Every word in the Bible....." Therefore it is possible to have a difference in translations.
The example I like to give is: the german word for refrigerator is "Kühlschrank" which would be somewhat translated as "cold storage"
So if I were to translate Kühlschrank into English, would I use Refrigerator or cold storage?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Infallibility has nothing to do with translation. The term applies to what the bible teaches. "Infallible" is a reference to the fact that the teachings of the bible will never fail ("fail" and "infallible" are based on the same root word).
The history of the bible is infallible history.
The promises of the bible are infallible promises.
The prophecy of the bible is infallible prophecy.
They will never fail - never proven to be in error.

Excellent distinction from other technical theological terms like "verbal, plenary inspiration". Avoid confusion with definition.

 

[Esther Thompson]

NOTE: This is NOT a discussion about the King James Only -
If you want to go in that direction - you can always start a new thread.

in·fal·li·ble
/inˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective

• 1.incapable of making mistakes or being wrong:

So should we describe the Bible we currently use as infallible?
Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?
If just one verse is wrong - do we "throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?

Open for discussion

You seem to contradict yourself. First, you say this is not to be a discussion about King James Bible only. Then you turn around and say "Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?" Then you say "Open for discussion", but is it really?

How can a person even answer your question without talking about the King James verses the other Bible translations?

 

[TCassidy]

How can a person even answer your question without talking about the King James verses the other Bible translations?

He's not talking about the KJV verses other bibles. He is talking about any two translations that differ from each other. In fact, other than the warning, he never mentioned the KJV.

He said: "Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?"

Show me where he said "Many versions use different words/phrases from the KJV. Does that make some version fallible?"

For instance, the American Standard Version reads "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" in Genesis 2:4.

But the World English Bible reads "This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens" in the same verse.

Does the addition of the word "history" in the WEB and the word "Yehweh" instead of "Jehovah" and "heaven" being singular in one and "heavens" being plural in the other make one or the other fallible?

Seems like a pretty simple question. No need to make it into a KJVO rant.

 

[Esther Thompson]

He's not talking about the KJV verses other bibles. He is talking about any two translations that differ from each other. In fact, other than the warning, he never mentioned the KJV.

He said: "Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?"

Show me where he said "Many versions use different words/phrases from the KJV. Does that make some version fallible?"

For instance, the American Standard Version reads "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" in Genesis 2:4.

But the World English Bible reads "This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens" in the same verse.

Does the addition of the word "history" in the WEB and the word "Yehweh" instead of "Jehovah" and "heaven" being singular in one and "heavens" being plural in the other make one or the other fallible?

Seems like a pretty simple question. No need to make it into a KJVO rant.

Okay well whatever it is that you are trying to say just isn't registering with me then.

The NIV Teaches the church was Built on Peter
Matthew 16:18 (NIV), "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Then the footnote says, "Peter means rock."
But Jesus sais that Peter was a pebble, and Peter made his great confession about the Deity of Christ (vs. 16), saying that He IS the “ROCK” (or the foundation) upon which the church is built (1 Cor. 3:11). And so, the NIV translators did what the Catholics have always wanted to do.

How can this rewording of the Truth of God's Word make it infallible? It isn't even true, is it?

Also the Bible says to 'compare spiritual things with spiritual'. Well, you can't do that when they have changed the words. It used to fit together like a puzzle, but now by the changing of the Word, based upon the ideas of Men, it has beome impossible to even compare one verse with another because the phrases in the verses have changed. So it is no longer infallible because the verses are not even true and they no longer match one another.

1 Corinthians 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Some of these Bible verses were changed based upon the demonic ideas of Westcott and Hort, the men who were into Spiritualism, which is completely anti-biblical to start with. So how can these versions be infallible? They were involved in the Occult Underground , ‘The Ghost Club’ or ‘Ghostly Guild'.

It is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). But these other Bible versions have turned the whole thing into a lie.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

 

[Esther Thompson]

There are times when I thank God that I am just a simple Woman, and not a Bible Scholar.

Matthew 11:25
25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

 

[Salty]

Tom, thank you for an excellent response. In fact you said it much better than I could have.

Though I did start this thread - which as you stated - "Seems like a pretty simple question. No need to make it into a KJVO rant". ( and I concur) - my mind has for the most part been elsewhere.

Click here for the post I made under prayer requests

 

[TCassidy]

The NIV Teaches the church was Built on Peter

No, it doesn't.

Matthew 16:18 (NIV), "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Then the footnote says, "Peter means rock."

Yes, the Greek word translated "Peter" means "rock." But the words are different. πετρος (Peter) is masculine in gender. πετρα (rock) is feminine. The feminine form refers to a large foundation stone. The play on words pointed out in the footnote of the NIV is saying that Christ used a play on words to emphasize His statement. The church is not built on Peter, but on the great foundation stone, the rock of Peter's confession of Christ as Lord. The fact that you don't understand that does not make the NIV wrong. The NIV is right. Peter means "rock."

How can this rewording of the Truth of God's Word make it infallible?

Your failure to understand it does not mean God's word will fail. It won't.

It isn't even true, is it?

Yes, the bible is true. And even the uninspired footnote is true. The Greek word for "Peter" (πετρος) means "rock."

Some of these Bible verses were changed based upon the demonic ideas of Westcott and Hort, the men who were into Spiritualism,

You may want to read some of the things written by Westcott and Hort. Doing so may clear up some of your confusion. Referring to their defense of the Trinity is not "demonic." Defending the Deity of Christ is not "demonic."

And their involvement in "Spiritism" (not "Spiritualism) was to debunk it all as nonsense.

which is completely anti-biblical to start with.

Yes, which is why they spent so much time debunking it.

So how can these versions be infallible?

God's word is infallible. Period.

But these other Bible versions have turned the whole thing into a lie.

God's word is not a lie.

There are times when I thank God that I am just a simple Woman, and not a Bible Scholar.

So you thank God that you refuse to make a close and careful study of God's word? That seems to me to be a rather odd thing to say. But, each to his own.

 

[Yeshua1]

NOTE: This is NOT a discussion about the King James Only -
If you want to go in that direction - you can always start a new thread.

in·fal·li·ble
/inˈfaləb(ə)l/
adjective

• 1.incapable of making mistakes or being wrong:

So should we describe the Bible we currently use as infallible?
Many versions use different words/phrases. Does that make some version fallible?
If just one verse is wrong - do we "throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
Does the saying "it loses something in translation" apply to the Bible?

Open for discussion

The originals were all Inerrant, Verbal plenary inspired, without any mistakes/errors in them, while the translations based upon the original language source texts would be infallible.
there is no need to have out translations to be 100 % accurate copies of the originals to be Infallible!

 

[Jerome]

Why such a fixation on using these red flag terms: inerrant and infallible? Can't you just agree that Scripture is truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why such a fixation on using these red flag terms: inerrant and infallible? Can't you just agree that Scripture is truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

When some do not like to see Inerrant/Infallible being used, reminds me of when some do not like to have justification/propitiation still used in translations, like somehow those words no longer are good to use.

 

[ehbowen]

Why such a fixation on using these red flag terms: inerrant and infallible? Can't you just agree that Scripture is truthful, reliable, authoritative, normative?

Because it's been a standard go-to tactic of Satan ever since the Greek philosophers three thousand years ago: Construct a strawman of an impossible standard...God must be completely omniscient, God never makes a mistake, etc....and, if it turns out that something did surprise him or that he rashly said something which he later came to regret (Job 38-41, front and center), then, why, there must be no God!

God is a person, and he can identify with the process of learning and growing as a person. Yes, in the final analysis he will be completely omniscient and completely satisfied that the end result of everything is good, and since he is a being outside of time that perfection will touch the entire chain of events from beginning to end...but it's taken him some bumps, bruises and hard knocks to get there.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because it's been a standard go-to tactic of Satan ever since the Greek philosophers three thousand years ago: Construct a strawman of an impossible standard...God must be completely omniscient, God never makes a mistake, etc....and, if it turns out that something did surprise him or that he rashly said something which he later came to regret (Job 38-41, front and center), then, why, there must be no God!

God is a person, and he can identify with the process of learning and growing as a person. Yes, in the final analysis he will be completely omniscient and completely satisfied that the end result of everything is good, and since he is a being outside of time that perfection will touch the entire chain of events from beginning to end...but it's taken him some bumps, bruises and hard knocks to get there.

The main problem is the terms inerrant/infallible o not mean what many see them as meaning!

 

[ehbowen]

When I speak of "inerrancy", what I mean is that every word of our Scriptures as originally given is exactly what God intended to say at the time it was given...and that, while God may at this juncture wish that he had said something else, he acknowledges that he did say that, he accepts the responsibility for that, and he will bear the cost of any restitution if you proceed based upon what he clearly stated. Of course, if you start burning witches in this day and age, he might choose to bring you Home for a mostly-friendly talking to....

 

[Yeshua1]

When I speak of "inerrancy", what I mean is that every word of our Scriptures as originally given is exactly what God intended to say at the time it was given...and that, while God may at this juncture wish that he had said something else, he acknowledges that he did say that, he accepts the responsibility for that, and he will bear the cost of any restitution if you proceed based upon what he clearly stated. Of course, if you start burning witches in this day and age, he might choose to bring you Home for a mostly-friendly talking to....

God gave what He intended to give, as God never makes mistakes, never has to second guess Himself, change His mind based upon new information, correct?

 

[ehbowen]

God gave what He intended to give, as God never makes mistakes, never has to second guess Himself, change His mind based upon new information, correct?

Incorrect. I believe that if you were to have a face to face chat with him, and he trusted you enough to be completely open with you, he would tell you that what he said to Job in chapters 38-41, while accurate enough on the surface and in accordance with what he believed at the time, was the single biggest mistake he ever made. "Might makes right" was a horrible precedent to set...the logical conclusion being that, if Satan can acquire more power than our God (his desperately desired aim), then he deserves to be worshiped and honored for having that power. I say no; I say that he would then need to be held to account for his abuse and misuse of that power. And I say that the same applies to our God...except that in His case I believe that He agrees enthusiastically.

 

[Revmitchell]

No God doesn't need to learn or go through bumps and bruises to get there.
that is heresy.