Does anyone have one reason that supports infallibilty?

[Paul the Human]

Then this is pointless. You acknowledge that the bibles are inaccurate, but won't declare them fallible. Discussion over. Nice to meet ya.

[Nine]

Not for me, the odds that we're hear typing in the forum are too astronomical.

The odds of winning the lottery or getting hit by piano's are pretty low but it still happens. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it wont happen.





Skip to about 1:30

[Minimalist]

Kings, geneologies, geography, scientific facts (both direct and possibly eluded to), prophecies, etc...

But I'm looking for a logical reason to either believe in the "infallible word of God" theory or not.

Hmm.... how many of these so-called "kings" ( I'm assuming you mean OT kings ) are actually attested anywhere other than the bible literature?

The genealogies of fictional kings prove exactly what?

What geography? Atlanta is a city in Georgia. That does not make Gone With the Wind any less of a work of fiction.

The supposed "scientific facts" in the bible ( and Quran, for that matter) have been beaten to death elsewhere.

And in order for prophecies to be prophetic you have to demonstrate that they were written before ( not after ) the event under consideration.

[catfish]

Hmm.... how many of these so-called "kings" ( I'm assuming you mean OT kings ) are actually attested anywhere other than the bible literature?

The genealogies of fictional kings prove exactly what?

What geography? Atlanta is a city in Georgia. That does not make Gone With the Wind any less of a work of fiction.

The supposed "scientific facts" in the bible ( and Quran, for that matter) have been beaten to death elsewhere.

And in order for prophecies to be prophetic you have to demonstrate that they were written before ( not after ) the event under consideration.

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?

[genkaus]

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.

---

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.

[Cato]

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.

All you have proved is that you have a pressing need to access a reputable dictionary in order to learn the definition of infallible.

[catfish]

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.

If I lie and misrepresent what was in a German scientist's book, does that make the scientist fallible?

But anyways, the OP was quite clear on the question, I already know the answer...

---

All you have proved is that you have a pressing need to access a reputable dictionary in order to learn the definition of infallible.

Alrighty...

Let me put this another way...

A person transcribes all of the testimony in a court case.

If one witness lies, does that make the transcription fallible?

---

I'm afraid "freethinker" is a misnomer...

Y'all say and do the same things. Get out of your box and learn what it means to be free > Me

[Zen Badger]

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.

If I lie and misrepresent what was in a German scientist's book, does that make the scientist fallible?

But anyways, the OP was quite clear on the question, I already know the answer...

---

All you have proved is that you have a pressing need to access a reputable dictionary in order to learn the definition of infallible.

Alrighty...

Let me put this another way...

A person transcribes all of the testimony in a court case.

If one witness lies, does that make the transcription fallible?

---

I'm afraid "freethinker" is a misnomer...

Y'all say and do the same things. Get out of your box and learn what it means to be free > Me

Yes, because it is no longer completely true.

[catfish]

Yes, because it is no longer completely true.

"Yes" to what, the transcription example?

[Cato]

Alrighty...

Let me put this another way...

A person transcribes all of the testimony in a court case.

If one witness lies, does that make the transcription fallible?

Yes. You apparently still need a reputable dictionary.