Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

Well I have invested a lot of money in more Bibles and more lexicons and more study aids, so I am not giving up on it completely.
I just think doing things like thinking God wrote the KJV is not at all helpful.
There are bad things in it which I have tried to point out. That does not mean throw the thing out entirely, but to see it for what it is, which is a helpful guide, once you understand which parts were created through good intentions, and which were not. I'm working through the maze to figure that out and will keep you all posted on my progress.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Is this just a general statement?

Or are you saying... you believe "the bible" may infact be Infallible?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Well I have invested a lot of money in more Bibles and more lexicons and more study aids, so I am not giving up on it completely.
I just think doing things like thinking God wrote the KJV is not at all helpful.
There are bad things in it which I have tried to point out. That does not mean throw the thing out entirely, but to see it for what it is, which is a helpful guide, once you understand which parts were created through good intentions, and which were not. I'm working through the maze to figure that out and will keep you all posted on my progress.

Imo a 'healthy' attitude.

It's difficult to put 'values' to anything without some 'higher' reference-points, but as the contributor Racasan wrote app. a month ago elsewhere, 'truths' can have greater or smaller probability.

I know that many religionists have a tendency to strive for absolutes (which is no problem for me, as long as said absolutes aren't pushed on other people), but epistemologically speaking the whole concept of absolutes per se is a very, very difficult position to justify, and in the case of specific absolutes impossible to validate at all.

But contrary to what the most invasive (and least informed) christian missionaries regurlarly claim as a part of their propaganda-campaigns, "all is not lost" because we have no absolutes.

The quotation from Racasan is actually one expression of the epistemologically part of the Jain religion (popularized through the writer R.A.Wilson), where there are 'local truths' which in their local context are fully functional and which can give a sound basis for existence. (I have admittedly tinkered a bit with it myself).

Say e.g. gravity (or electro-magnetism), which most likely are phenomena restricted to cosmic existence. Trans-cosmically they are (according to contemporary knowledge) non-existent.

So while it's anybody's guess on how an alleged trans-cosmic existence really is (though we do have some safe
indications that a trans-cosmic existence as such is real..... through quantum entanglement), we can give functional, but relative 'values' to things by using the best of what our 'local truths' with high probability give us.

I've had some interesting exchanges with Akragon about that on more abstract subjects, and while he and I ultimatively don't agree academically on the finer points (and me being a non-theist) ofcourse don't agree theologically, this isn't really that much of a problem. Akragon has from his direction arrived to conclusions, which I from my 'mundane' direction can support a long part of the way and even give my own 'approval' of as being rational.

An unreasonable amount of time and energy is wasted on this forum, debating undebatable theist claims of ultimate truth/reality/absolutes. Usually because of the missionary mindset's obsession with having exclusive monopoly on 'truth', falsely promoting the subjective to objectivity.

For those of us who aren't in such a need of an enforced 'truth'-monopoly, but either can accept personal (but not pushy) 'truths'....or as in my case 'relative truths', the possibilities of both co-existence and learning are much bigger than what the invasive missionaries ever can offer or achieve.

And my interest in this thread comes from, that it more than any other thread demonstrates and profiles all the options of faith vs. fact, subjectivity vs. objectivity, truth/reality-seeking methodologies, epistemology, the possibility of co-existence (or not) between different worldviews (and from a psychological perspective also gives an insight in the fanatical mindset).

So while you, jm, may use several 'maze-solving' criteria differing from mine, I believe that we walk parallel paths, not further apart than meaningful communication is possible, where some less visible common basics and values are at play.

reply to post by Akragon

I don't think anyone really believes the Bible is infallible.
I was taught that the Bible was what amounts to a magic book, where God will pick out a certain person to be the prophet of that day, and will give that person a vision of something akin to a combination to open a safe.
Open the metaphorical safe and the truth pops out and you can show your truth is true by sharing that combination (a list of verses to read in a particular order) with others, to verify for themselves on their own home Bible.
Of course that would only work if everyone read the exact same version of a Bible.
I don't believe anymore in that system of revelation, but I still think there is something to comparing different texts with each other because the Bible was actually written to where it has to be understood that way.
I think the Bible was written by having one person look at something someone else wrote, then build on those themes and add some interpretation by adding bits as new stories or whatever. That may be fine until you get too many generations on and the original story ends up being lost in a sea of interpretations of interpretations.

reply to post by bogomil

. . .the possibility of co-existence (or not) between different worldviews. . .

Liberty is something fundamental to Christianity (which the Greeks believed in philosophically) before being taken over by a hierarchy of professionals. Liberty would include tolerance. You can't believe in liberty by thinking everyone needs to conform to a uniformity.

reply to post by Akragon


Sorry to say this Arkragon - but it seems that you're not able to grasp even the simple things that I've been saying. Either you're not paying attention or you just plain don't know. Anyway I think it's pointless to converse with you since you even had no idea what the word "zeal" means in Biblical terms - let alone in Hebrew terms.

Here let me show you:

You said:

Zeal and Jealousy are two different terms...

But according to Strongs Concordance - they are synonymous.

Here see it for yourself:

Lexicon Results Strong's H7068 - qin'ah קִנְאָה
Transliteration
qin'ah
Pronunciation

kin·ä' (Key)


Part of Speech
feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

From קָנָא (H7065)

TWOT Reference
2038a

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) ardour, zeal, jealousy

a) ardour, jealousy, jealous disposition (of husband)

1) sexual passion

b) ardour of zeal (of religious zeal)

1) of men for God

2) of men for the house of God

3) of God for his people

c) ardour of anger

1) of men against adversaries

2) of God against men

d) envy (of man)

e) jealousy (resulting in the wrath of God)


Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 43 ...

www.blueletterbible.org...

Simply put - the Hebrew word "qin'ah" (zeal) also means "jealousy" or "ardor".

And in case you don't or don't wanna know - there are two kinds of "jealousy" - a POSITIVE jealousy - as in a loving husband's jealousy towards her wife (as belonging to him) or a loving wife's jealousy towards her husband (as belonging to her).

In short it means "EXCLUSIVE DEVOTION":

Thus IF we claim to serve God then we MUST show "EXCLUSIVE DEVOTION" to Him.
Another word for "EXCLUSIVE DEVOTION" is Loyalty and faithfulness.

Then there's the NEGATIVE jealousy which is ENVY and other negative feelings (misdirected jealousy/zeal).

Do I need to expain this again? I hope not.

Tip for you: the use of the word "jealousy/zeal/ardour" will depend on the context/s.

Now, if you can't understand these simple things how are you able to grasp the deeper ones? How does a babe partake solid food when he is still taking milk?

As for what you said next:

And Rightous Jealousy is a contradiction in terms...

Wrong again.


Righteous Jealousy is self explanatory - why you see it as a contradiction, i guess because to quote you:

You're reaching man...

but in case you need further clarification:

Here's what the Lord Jesus did when his Father's house was being disrespected:

Jhn 2:13 NLT - It was nearly time for the Jewish Passover celebration, so Jesus went to Jerusalem.

Jhn 2:14 NLT - In the Temple area he saw merchants selling cattle, sheep, and doves for sacrifices; he also saw dealers at tables exchanging foreign money.

Jhn 2:15 NLT - Jesus made a whip from some ropes and chased them all out of the Temple. He drove out the sheep and cattle, scattered the money changers' coins over the floor, and turned over their tables.

Jhn 2:16 NLT - Then, going over to the people who sold doves, he told them, "Get these things out of here. Stop turning my Father's house into a marketplace!"

Jhn 2:17 NLT - Then his disciples remembered this prophecy from the Scriptures: "Passion for God's house will consume me."

Note how v17 is rendered in other translations:

KJV - Jhn 2:17 - And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
© Info: - King James Version 1769 Info


NKJV - Jhn 2:17 - Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten* Me up."*


© Info: - New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NIV - Jhn 2:17 - His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."*


ESV - Jhn 2:17 - His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."
© Info: - English Standard Version © 2001, 2007 Crossway Bibles


NASB - Jhn 2:17 - His disciples remembered that it was written, "ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME."
© Info: - New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation


RSV - Jhn 2:17 - His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for thy house will consume me."
© Info: - Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.


ASV - Jhn 2:17 - His disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for thy house shall eat me up.
© Info: - American Standard Version 1901 Info


YLT - Jhn 2:17 - And his disciples remembered that it is written, `The zeal of Thy house did eat me up;'
© Info: - Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 18

Was Jesus jealous for his Father's house? Indeed - a righteous (zeal) jealousy he had shown!

www.blueletterbible.org.../17

cy later..

reply to post by edmc^2


You wrote:

["Sorry to say this Arkragon - but it seems that you're not able to grasp even the simple things that I've been saying."]

Which is a very bizarre postulate. I've had quite a few long and deep-loding debates with Akragon, and his ability to 'grasp' things appears quite good to me. And mind you, many of the topics between Akragon and me have been on my 'homeground', and we haven't always agreed (there have even been a few sharp corners, now settled).

Bible cherry-picking (of which I'm no expert) does from the outside seem to be a highly subjective process. There are no final reference-points, there are no commonly agreed-upon methodologies and whatever overall answers/methods/conclusions are arrived at all rely very much on circular arguments.

In any case cherry-picking is not my table, which as you know is reality-checking (with a reality outside the christian bubble), and if bible-relaters choose to join a cherry-picking contest it's none of my business.

But that's something completely different from starting on an authority-contest based on individual qualities and competence. And as I presently and for the duration am engaged in a rampage of my own (no holds barred), I COULD demonstrate an unpleasant version of personal quality/competence to you.

(I hope not, you have some qualities I appreciate).

reply to post by bogomil

Which is a very bizarre postulate. I've had quite a few long and deep-loding debates with Akragon, and his ability to 'grasp' things appears quite good to me.

then why is he not able to grasp the meaning of a very simple word such as "zeal".

I'm sure with your vocabulary expertise you agree with Strong's Concordance what is meant by zeal.

I've even provided enough examples of what it is yet he questioned it.

So what can I say?

If he's not able to grasp it then what about the deeper things.

reply to post by edmc^2


So as usual, you resort to my capacity to understand your silly ramblings when you have no where else to turn... how typical of you.


zeal (zl)
n.
Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance.

jeal·ous·y   /ˈdʒɛləsi/ Show Spelled[jel-uh-see] Show IPAnoun, plural -ous·ies for 4.
1.jealousresentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.
2.mental uneasiness from suspicion or fearof rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in loveor aims.
3.vigilance in maintaining or guarding something.

Again, two different words... look it up, and your quote does not provide a definition of the words, it provides the use of the words within the bible... Just because you're a bit "simple" doesn't mean you should lower others to your mental capacity... though again this is very typical of religious Zealots (that means fanatic just so you don't have to look it up) when they have no real arguements against one who understands more then you do about your own beliefs.

Now exactly how would you consider Jesus to be Jealous within that passage? You know what, nevermind... i honestly don't even care what you have to say anymore.


Your understanding is stupifying to say the least... Honestly though i tire of this rediculous arguement. I thought you were a little different then the other religious fanatics around here but you've proven to be no different what so ever. When you have no arguements you resort to insults.... again quite typical...

Regardless, i've torn this thread to pieces over and over, yet you continue to fight when it was over 10+ pages ago... and you're not even fighting for the subject of infallibility anymore.

At this point this is just an arguement, and you've already proven you have nothing to offer the topic simply because as i've said, you start using insults as your defence...

This is actually why i prefer to talk to the people of your religion in person... I would love to see you attempt to insult me face to face


Pathetic man... but whatever floats your boat.

And you can keep your "self rightious" jealousy... I've have none of it thanks

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by bogomil

 

Which is a very bizarre postulate. I've had quite a few long and deep-loding debates with Akragon, and his ability to 'grasp' things appears quite good to me.

then why is he not able to grasp the meaning of a very simple word such as "zeal".

I'm sure with your vocabulary expertise you agree with Strong's Concordance what is meant by zeal.

I've even provided enough examples of what it is yet he questioned it.

So what can I say?

If he's not able to grasp it then what about the deeper things.

You could try using a dictionary...

Perhaps that doesn't fall in line with your beliefs either though...

reply to post by Akragon

You could try using a dictionary...

Perhaps that doesn't fall in line with your beliefs either though...

huh...now you're really grasping....for straw.

You have no real understanding of what godly jealousy is all about or for that matter zeal for God.

here - what does words of Paul below mean?

“I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy.”—2 Corinthians 11:2.

Is it a positive jealousy or a negative jealousy?

Here's a site about godly jealousy and its meaning:

www.rogerswebsite.com...

Note - i don't know this person - just found him using google search.

some of what he said that might help you:

“What is Godly Jealousy?” Just what
do you mean by the term godly jealousy?

A logical place to start is by looking at how jealousy is defined in our English language as
well as the way the Greek and Hebrew words are defined that are used for jealousy in the
Bible.

Webster's Dictionary gives the following definitions for the word jealousy:

1. "apprehensive of loss of exclusive devotion"
2. "intolerance of rivalry or unfaithfulness"
3. "hostile toward one believed to enjoy an advantage"
4. "vigilant to guard a possession"

All four of those aspects of jealousy are seen in the verse we just read. God has a deep
concern, a zeal to not lose the exclusive devotion we are to have for Him. Second, He will
not tolerate rivalry or unfaithfulness. He is also hostile towards those false idols that enjoy
the advantage of our devotion that should belong to Him and He is even hostile to those who
persist in their unfaithfulness towards Him visiting their iniquity. Finally, He is vigilant to
guard a possession, that is, the faithful devotion we should have toward God.

All of those four aspects of jealousy are also seen in the two examples of human jealousy I
described at the start of the sermonette. We know instinctively that those examples of
human jealousy are sinful so the question remains what is the difference between sinful
human jealousy and godly jealousy? Let’s probe a little deeper.
...

later

reply to post by Akragon

This is actually why i prefer to talk to the people of your religion in person... I would love to see you attempt to insult me face to face


Pathetic man... but whatever floats your boat.

And you can keep your "self rightious" jealousy... I've have none of it thanks..

What? When did I insulted you?

Did I call you a fanatic, a zealot, pathethic, etc, etc...No but these are the words you throw at me.

But if I did insult you then my deepest apologies...wasn't my intention.

But in a disscusion things get misunderstood.

In any case - I know where you're coming from and I do understand where you stand - but I'm here to defend the Word Of God. And by you (who happen to be a believer of God) quoting things promoted by Bible critics makes my task a lot tougher since there are many here who don't believe in the Bible. You're reinforcing that belief as a Theist.

As for ""self rightious" jealousy"" - I repeat Jesus' words:

Nobody is good, except one, God.”—Mark 10:17

And for that matter - I'm nothing.

jmdewey60 sez:

I don't think anyone really believes the Bible is infallible.

Laz replies:

I do, and I think KJV1611 is even more radical in believing the Bible is infallible than I do, at least the version he names himself after. I have, for years, subscribed to the "perfect in the original autographs" theology, but KJV1611 states, IIRC, that the KJV (1611) is BETTER than the original autographs. Mind blowing! [but don't you take "mind blowing" and run with it, bogomil]

Originally posted by Griffo

edit on Mon Jul 18 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: --Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--

Awesome post, nothing sums this entire thread up better than this pic

How do you know god is infallible? Because it says so in the bible.
How do you know god exists? Because it says so in the bible.
How do you know the bible is god's word? Because it says so in the bible.

The very definition of gullibility

reply to post by Lazarus Short

I have, for years, subscribed to the "perfect in the original autographs" theology, but KJV1611 states, IIRC, that the KJV (1611) is BETTER than the original autographs. Mind blowing! [but don't you take "mind blowing" and run with it, bogomil]

Unfortunately Bogomil left for no apparent reason other than he said people were insulting him, which may be why he left, its difficult to see how he felt from his side of things and maybe he did feel some hard to bear animosity towards him, I don't know.
You seem to be on the extreme edge of the very small fringe. I don't have anything in particular against that in itself because I would place myself in that category too, but in other areas. I believe some scripture was written by inspired men who had firsthand knowledge of things about God and Jesus but I think some was written by people who just wanted to write books and were accepted for political reasons probably.
The term I was given by my particular church as inerrant, which means generally that it is possible to be wrong but just isn't. I don't see it that way currently just because everything can not be right if there are so many different versions. I don't think the KJV is perfect because it was made for political purposes specifically to support the views of the English Church which the king was the head of.

Really now why do people even make threads like this here? What's the point?!

Originally posted by Iason321
Really now why do people even make threads like this here? What's the point?!

1Pe 3:15 ESV - but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you,

Because:

Jhn 17:17 ASV - Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

That is the point.

Question is - do you believe that God's Written Word is Infallible?

Originally posted by Iason321
Really now why do people even make threads like this here? What's the point?!

read the thread... you may figure it out...

God sakes why resurect the dead bro...

:bnghd:

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Iason321
Really now why do people even make threads like this here? What's the point?!

read the thread... you may figure it out...

God sakes why resurect the dead bro...

:bnghd:

Someday, God willing we will debate the infallibility of the bible and the word will win. Until then I will let you have your way. It does however point out the fallibility of man, and it is for this reason that you have rejected the infallibility of the bible.

I don’t think I have confused Akragon on this one and if I have I win this round of word play.

reply to post by edmc^2

Because:

Jhn 17:17 ASV - Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

That is the point.

Question is - do you believe that God's Written Word is Infallible?

The truth was what Jesus was saying and he knew it was because God talked to him and told him what to say.

Jesus was not just sitting their cherry picking the Old Testament and being really smart abut it, he was giving the new revelation of God in new words expressed by himself which were prophetic in that they were really the words of God being spoken by him in the way of the prophet.