RE: Does anyone have one reason that supports infallibilty?
July 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm
(This post was last modified: July 21, 2012 at 12:05 am by genkaus.)
(July 20, 2012 at 6:55 pm)catfish Wrote: Not for me, the odds that we're hear typing in the forum are too astronomical.
I want to know what defines the Bible, the added stories? the historical accounts? the prophecies? I didn't witness all of the various books being assembled, I can't be sure what is supposed to be there and what isn't.
I'm positive of what's been changed in the Bible, but if someone changes something after the fact, who is to know the difference?
I don't consider the Bible to be an accurate translation...
In fact, I think the Bible predicts it's own corruption...
What exactly do you mean when you refer to the Bible? Clearly, it is not the same as everyone else. When talking about the Bible, we refer to the collection of texts as they exist, today. When talking about a time in the past, Bible would refer to the collection of texts as it existed then. Clearly, the current one is very much fallible - as has been shown to you over and over again. What you are trying to argue is that any mistakes in the current one are dues to mistranslations and errors while copying from a previous infallible version. Well, there isn't any reason to assume infallibility at any point. Besides, a lot of stories which are central to it are so out there that no amount of translations or correct copying would make it legit. Evidence says that it is fallible and always has been fallible.
(July 20, 2012 at 7:43 pm)catfish Wrote: I'm not looking to debate those issues.
My main concern is with the infallible theory.
If the Bible predicts, exposes and condemns the lies, then aren't the lies part of the whole and intended to be there?
Both sides seem to think that it's all or nothing.
I'm looking for a logical reason to either reject the whole thing or accept the BS as part of the whole. (I.E. intended mistakes, kinda like a "test")
To me, infallible as a literal interpretation is impossible, yet infallible as a test booklet is quite plausible.
This subject is really for a Christian to debate, don't you think?
Look up the meaning of the word "infallible" first. It means incapable of having any errors or deceptions. It wouldn't matter is the supposed errors and deceptions are meant as a test, the moment they are included, it becomes fallible. The bible is, supposedly, a guide to practicing Christianity. If it makes any deceptive or misleading statements about it, even if they are meant as a test, it is fallible.
