KFC the bible may have been written by man, but how long after the facts were they written? (the various books) the stories told and retold - how much was added in the telling before they reached paper? How can we really tell what has not been added as additional "imaginings"?

What I am trying to say i s simply

how do we separate the fact from the fiction?

Just to play devil's advocate here KFC, if the Holy Bible is infallible, but there are many versions of the Holy Bible, which version is infallible?

Ok, now that I've had my fun... To me it doesn't matter, the Holy Bible is the word of God, but it isn't God.  I think too many Christians get to the point where it is the Bible they worship, instead of God.  To turn to the Bible to learn God's word is a great and important part of being Christian, but if one gets to the point that the Bible becomes the only source of inspiration from God (as apposed to prayer and direct revelation), it becomes pretty close to idolatry.

The problem with the comparison is euclidian geometry or washing machine directions are verifiably true. They can be empirically proven to be true. I can demonstrate either, prove them. I can show you physical evidence of either. God, by definition of faith, is an unprovable. You accept the existance and word of God on your faith in the same unprovable. You may "know" it to be true in your heart, you may believe beyond all shadow of a doubt that the Bible is literally perfect, but you can not actually prove it. In order to know God is real and the Bible is perfect, you have to have faith in those two things. It's an infinite loop, logically speaking.

I do not question the infallibility of the Bible on the argument that fallible men wrote it, I question it based on how many revisions and interpretations it has gone through. The fact that there have been grand political/theological councils (you can't really argue that the Roman Catholic Church wasn't a major political power) through history to establish the books to be included, and then to later go back and modify them. And then there are all the political splits from the Roman Catholic Church, which were based on disagreements of doctrine... with the church that essentially created and had administered the religion for centuries. This spawns additional permutations to the Bible. And of course the Christian Old Testament is a bit different from the Jewish books of faith. There's the Apocrypha which was never included as official, but many people argue it to be as historically accurate as the Bible itself. I question the unerring nature of the Bible because we have recorded moments in human history, where groups of men gathered to alter what it meant to be Christian, and as a result altered the bible to fit their new view.

At the very least, if you're going to argue for infallibility of the Bible, just to be safe, you should probably be sticking to the Roman Catholic Church version, since it is essentially "the original"

And again, it's hard to convince anyone that something is unerringly true, when the first thing you have to accept in order to believe that assertion, is absolutely unprovable.

For example, several years ago one of the authors was teaching a class on the reliability of the Bible. For it, he had typed up a one page outline of the course. The finished product was inerrant; it had no typographical errors, no mistakes in copying from the hand-written original. Although the author was human and was prone to make mistakes, he was in fact infallible in this instance.

I wonder how much white out he used before he finished it.

Lol... come on.

"Although we often hear this accusation, it just is not correct. We grant that human beings do make mistakes, and that they make them often. But they do not necessarily make mistakes in all cases, and they do not necessarily have to make mistakes."

We're not just dealing with typographical errors. We're dealing with totally subjective matters of translation and philosophical "truth". You change one word and the philosophical result changes in many important scriptures. Yet, we have numerous translations that choose different words.

So, which is inerrant? Is it "Faith, Hope and Love" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity"? There are TONS of differences between the word love and the word charity, yet many translations differ. I would challenge folks to look at 1 Corinthians 13 in the:

King James Version

...and then compare it to the same in the:

New International Version

...and tell me that they'd consider the two totally philosophically interchangeable.

Now, if the NIV is wrong, how exactly do you pin that error down? It isn't a typo. It isn't something that leaps off the page unless you have the other material as well. Now go back and try that with every word in the Bible as references the original Hebrew and Greek. Did Jesus speak greek? Do we even have Jesus' sayings in Aramaic to compare to the supposedly "original" greek??

No, we don't. The aramaic scripture we have is equal in age or even newer than the greek gospels. So these subjective, philosophical decisions about translation have been made more than once, by people we can't even cite. Each time, the decisions were based on the values of the person as to whether or not it fit in with what they believed Jesus or the Bible to be saying.

So, there's no objective way the Bible could be inerrant, because there's no possible way to translate something objectively. Period. It was skewed to the beliefs of the people who translate it. Not unlike how KFC skews everything she reads to prove her beliefs.

"To be sure, the production over centuries of sixty-six inerrant and mutually consistent books by different authors is a tall order-and we cheerfully appeal to God's Spirit to achieve it-but the point remains that there is nothing metaphysically inhuman or against human nature in such a possibility."

That statement might have more weight if there were really 66 books. The reality is the Bible is different according to what religion you are. Roman Catholics have 46 books in their OT canon, and Protestants have 39. Josephus said there were 22. ANyone looking at a Tanakh as it would have been written would barely recognize it even if they COULD read Hebrew.

Fundamentalists live in a little fantasy world where the KJV has always existed. It hasn't. They like to think "The Bible" is a single book, but in reality it is many different books, translated and arranged in many different ways over thousands of years. KFC might imagine that such a thing is inerrant, but she definitely can't compare it to an appliance manual and test its reliability in the same way.

Lol... these are the parts that always get me:

"We also believe that there is sufficient evidence that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Scriptures themselves testify,"

Do they offer anything OTHER than the scriptures as proof that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Since when is the book itself sufficient evidence of its claims?

IS IT GOOD ENOUGH THAT THE KORAN TESTIFIES ITSELF TO BE THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD??? If not, why should we believe what the Bible says is proof enough?

I'm interested to know if KFC feels it was a mistake for the translators of the KJV to have used the word "charity" there in Corinthians.

One of the most frequent arguments leveled against the infallibility of the Bible is based upon the fact that the Bible was written by human authors

The argument isn’t just based on the fact that the Bible was written by man. It’s based more on the Bible’s content. Many Biblical philosophies, views and parameters simply don’t ring true to many people, and don’t particularly line up with reality.

If I read a book that described an event in which a person turned into a pillar of salt, or described a donkey talking, or depicted a whole concoction of unworldly events – all of which were part of daily life in OT days, remember – one with a sound mind would naturally conclude that such a book was not “inerrant, infallible”, or an accurate depiction of “Truth”.

The Biblical principle that all non-Christians will perish in Hellfire forever is childish, for one. The Qur’an says the same thing about non-Muslims, and it’s clearly a view held within the fundamentalist bubble, rather than a view aligned with “Truth”.

If we take time out to relax, gain a sound state of mind, and look around the real world – whether it be in the office, or in the supermarket, or at a music-concert – and ask ourself honestly: Will the majority of these people be punished in hellfire for ever and ever after death, tormented and in pain, because they didn’t become a born again Christian? Or maybe all Christians will perish in the Muslim hell forever?

In my opinion, regarding such religious philosophies and beliefs, we need only consult the wisdom of our own heart, after praying to the Holy Spirit, in order to get a general gauge as to what might be true and what might not.

And what about verses that describe God as an angry, jealous, vengeful tyrant? And what about the contradictions? (The sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill”, but 1 Samuel 15.3 sees God commanding His people to “Kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child").

No. The sooner humanity grows out of religious fundamentalism the better, in my view.

If we take time out to relax, gain a sound state of mind, and look around the real world – whether it be in the office, or in the supermarket, or at a music-concert – and ask ourself honestly: Will the majority of these people be punished in hellfire for ever and ever after death, tormented and in pain, because they didn’t become a born again Christian?

... the Bible teaches that God chooses who becomes Christian or not, and therefore effectively selects the aforementioned innocent souls to perish in the fires of hell. No, this God isn’t aligned with Truth.

... not to mention that our scientists are telling us that the universe is far bigger and older than a literal interpretation of Genesis would have us believe. But no, the Bible is infallible and inerrant and certain verses much be interpreted literally, so we must remain in an immature, un-evolved mind set.

At least the following verse is nicely aligned with wisdom:

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." - 1 Corinthians 13.12

how do we separate the fact from the fiction?

I'm saying Jen, that there is no fiction when it comes to scripture unless you want to include the parables but even then I'd have to say Christ was most likely either drawing pictures or basing the parables on true life.

The Bible was written by the eyewittnesses. So it happened in their lifetimes. Moses wrote the first five books himself and he was the major player in four of the books. The Gospels were written as early as 25 years after the death of Christ and the rest of the NT was written mostly by Paul via letters he sent to the churches. John saw a vision and wrote it down and that's where we get Revelation.

but there are many versions of the Holy Bible, which version is infallible?

only in the original languages, so that would be in the Hebrew and Greek. Our versions come from those versions. Some versions came from the Latin Vulgate instead of the original. Jerome was responsible for the Latin Vulgate.

but if one gets to the point that the Bible becomes the only source of inspiration from God (as apposed to prayer and direct revelation), it becomes pretty close to idolatry

I would never say it's the only source, but I do believe it's the only "written source." God doesn't pray to us Para. We pray to him. God speaks to us via his word, via other people, our experiences and the HS nudges us but it never contradicts His word. They all go hand in hand. It's a way for us to know if something is of God or not. Otherwise how would we know? Satan is very good at imitating God. Jesus said the Sheep know my voice. How would we know if we didn't have His written word? We can't trust our intellect or our feelings. They can let us down.

At the very least, if you're going to argue for infallibility of the Bible, just to be safe, you should probably be sticking to the Roman Catholic Church version, since it is essentially "the original"

The RCC version is the Latin Vulgate. The original was written in the Greek and Hebrew of which we have thousands of original copies of.

I question the unerring nature of the Bible because we have recorded moments in human history, where groups of men gathered to alter what it meant to be Christian, and as a result altered the bible to fit their new view.

With the original copies still around and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were 1,000 years older than what we had in our hands at the time, we are pretty confident that what we hold in our hands today is what God intended us to have. Besides, as I wrote here, "Is anything to hard for God?" The same HS that worked in these men to give us the word I believe is the same supernatural power that protected it.

Thanks Zoomba for your input.

The Gospels were written as early as 25 years after the death of Christ

That is the sort of thing I am referring to - how much has been added - you know how memories get embellished upon over the years. How reliable would the original texts be if so much time had passed before they wrote it down? For example - the story of the bread and fish in the baskets on the hill - there were originally only a few loaves and they just kept feeding the people neverendingly.

If I remember the bible story there were a few thousand people on the hill - few thousand or few hundred or handful? This may not be a brilliant example (I do not even remember what book it comes from just new testament or who wrote it etc) but it demonstrates what I am trying to say; the numbers could have been increased etc so stories could have been embellished upon.

So, which is inerrant? Is it "Faith, Hope and Love" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity"? There are TONS of differences between the word love and the word charity, yet many translations differ. I would challenge folks to look at 1 Corinthians 13 in the:

Both are fine and acceptable Baker. Charity is Love. Just diff wording. Here ya go.

26 ἀãÜðç [agape /ag·ah·pay/] n f. From 25; TDNT 1:21; TDNTA 5; GK 27; 116 occurrences; AV translates as “love” 86 times, “charity” 27 times, “dear” once, “charitably + 2596” once, and “feast of charity” once. 1 brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence. 2 love feasts.

There's nothing wrong with the NIV or the KVJ. One may put in "vulture" another may put in "eagle" depending on the langauge of the day. One may put in "corpse" another may put in "body" The inerrancy is not in the KJV or in the NIV, but in the original languages. There are diff Gk words for one of our words. For instance Love. We have "agape, and phileo in the Gk but in our versions we just put in Love. We have to go to the originals to find out which love....is it a brotherly Love or a Godly love? The GK has words that have gender. We do not. Again we go back to the Gk to find out if it's meant to be masculine or feminine. So translating from the original to the language of the people can be challenging to exactly what is meant. One thing tho, the meaning is not lost.

From what I have read and heard the NASB and the ESV are about as close to the originals as you can get. I like the KJV and use it alot, but I know it's not the best as far as being close to the originals and it's wording is now pretty ancient. We don't say thee's and thous anymore....but I like it and therefore I still use it but I use many diff versions when I go digging thru scripture.

lmao, charity is not love. When the government lets you deduct from your taxes, do they call it a 'love donation'? Do you donate your money to 'love'?

No. One good definition I saw was "love in action", or actually doing something about your love when someone else is in need. The two words most certainly aren't equitable. So, if one isn't an accurate representation of what was intended by the original author, it is an error.

You see when KFC needs a scripture to mean something specific to differentiate her philosophically, she demands a scripture be read in concrete fashion. When the Bible is dangerously close to being recognized for the man-made book it is, she gets all easy going. Oh, sure, you can interchange love and charity, no big deal.

Such behavior is the reason protestantism is splintered into numerous denominations. KFC's usual display here is dishonest in that it implies that protestant christians aren't picky about the wording. Heck, it translates itself, right? That's why everyone agrees, right?

In reality they are more often nazis about it when it comes to doctrine and differentiating themselves from the church down the road. It's shameful that people who tout the ten commandments have to be so dishonest about the state of their religion.

lmao, charity is not love. When the government lets you deduct from your taxes, do they call it a 'love donation'? Do you donate your money to 'love'?

This is ridiculous. Actually charity is love....but com'on Baker, you're taking a modern way we use a word now and trying to show how it doesn't fit in a book that was written in 1611. At least you admit it's your opinion. So it's your opinion against all the other works of ancient literature as well as a Greek Lexicon.

Words have a way of changing meanings. The word gay for instance is not used in the same way as gay was in the 50's. You read any old books and you'll see the word "gay" used in plenty and it always meant happy and carefree. We don't use that word anymore in that fashion. I am an avid reader, and when I was younger the word "gay" was very commonly used. Nowadays I'd bet dollars to donuts you wouldn't be caught dead using that word unless you meant a non hetero.

You see when KFC needs a scripture

are you writing to me ....or using my thread to sermonize to others? I've asked you to directly respond to me....not my audience.

Charity means love Baker....so skip the sermonizing ok? I gave you the definition. Now I'm a nazi? Can't you ever converse without the name calling? Your charity is not showing Baker, maybe you need to open the book more often.

JEN,

How reliable would the original texts be if so much time had passed before they wrote it down? For example - the story of the bread and fish in the baskets on the hill - there were originally only a few loaves and they just kept feeding the people neverendingly

First off, there were four gospel writers who wrote about their travels and experiences with Christ. They wrote during the time that many could have refuted these happenings. In John we have record that Christ said that the HS would bring all things to their rememberances. I'm sure the HS guided them to write what they did but if you spent 3 1/2 years with someone of Christ's reputation, don't you think you'd remember most of it? The miracle you speak of was one of the few that was recorded in all 4 gospels. It's amazing how similar they all were in their recollections. Almost as if it really happened......well that's because it did.

MATT 6
And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals. But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. He said, Bring them hither to me. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

MARK 6
 He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes. And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties. And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

LUKE 9
But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people. For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company. And they did so, and made them all sit down. Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.

JOHN 6
And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would. When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.

the numbers could have been increased etc so stories could have been embellished upon.

so as you can see, nothing seems to be embellished. All four are in agreement. My question to you would be...how do you know that what you are believing is not embellished? Where are you reaching to pull out your beliefs that the bible is not what it says it is? Who told you it's fiction mixed with fact? What I'm getting at is I hear this stuff all the time. People who say, "it's a good book but you can't take it literally" or "it's filled with stories that are not true, they are just stories afterall." When push comes to shove people are mimicking others and what they've heard along the way. They have not done, usually, any research to back up why they believe this way. Only saying what they've heard others say. Most of the time they have not even opened up the cover to take a peek themselves...already taking someone else's word for it. Most just change the subject when asked if they read the book.

Well if eternity is at stake, shouldn't you be convinced in YOUR own mind? At least you should know that you believe it's not true because you've read it yourself.

If I read a book that described an event in which a person turned into a pillar of salt, or described a donkey talking, or depicted a whole concoction of unworldly events – all of which were part of daily life in OT days, remember – one with a sound mind would naturally conclude that such a book was not “inerrant, infallible”, or an accurate depiction of “Truth”.

well can't say much about the donkey but I do know that there were large pillars of salt found in the area of where Sodom was. I thought that was pretty interesting. It is a documented fact. If God wanted to turn someone into a pillar of salt he would use what was available. I think we see that all thru scripture. An ordinary basket was used to put the baby Moses in for protection. Jesus used ordinary things to teach on the supernatural, like fishes and loaves. He used mud to heal a blind man etc.

In my opinion, regarding such religious philosophies and beliefs, we need only consult the wisdom of our own heart, after praying to the Holy Spirit, in order to get a general gauge as to what might be true and what might not.

I'll ask the same as I asked Baker. How do you know it's God that's answering you if you don't have anything to compare it to outside of yourself? Aren't you relying on men's wisdom instead of God's? What does Ps 118:8 say? You too are basing this on your own opinion. Are you always right? I'm not...so let me clarify that ok? But I don't rely on myself either.

... the Bible teaches that God chooses who becomes Christian or not, and therefore effectively selects the aforementioned innocent souls to perish in the fires of hell. No, this God isn’t aligned with Truth.

NO, this is incorrect. God doesn't choose who goes into hellfire. We do. We choose to sin. We choose NOT to follow God. It is WE who make this decision. Jesus is truth. Jesus is God. Therefore God is Truth. Maybe not YOUR truth. But HE is the truth.

One person told me one time, as she laughed, that she was going to Hell because they have more fun there. She had no interest in heaven. I told her that she may be laughing now but she won't be laughing then. She was making a choice.