Biblical Statements About Infallibility/Inerrancy (A Theology / No Science Topic)

2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 are both places that the Bible claims to be infallable (or breathed out by God, who cannot lie).I'd like to make a proposition and see what kind of replies it gets, because when talking about this issue the idea of circular reasoning comes up (I saw it mentioned earler, but I didn't take the time to fully read through all of the replies to see if it was dealth with).If the Bible is the Word of God, the absolutely authoritative work given to us by the Creator of the universe, who doesn't audibly speak today, then we can view the Bible as absolute authority. If something is absolute in its authority, then the only way this can be established is by the things that this authority claims about itself. If we were to rely on any other argument for the reliability of scripture, anything at other than what scripture says, we would be making that argument or the source of that information out to be in a place of authority over the Bible, because we are relying on what that says to verify the claims of the Bible. Therefore, in order for an authority to be absolute, we have to rely on what it says about itself.The rest really comes by faith. Any view of the origins of life and the universe involves some kind if inductive reasoning, even those that claim to be truly scientific and provable cannot be 100% sure because nobody was there to see it (besides God and Adam of course).

double postThis message has been edited by winston123180, 11-09-2004 11:44 PM

Yes, it would definately apply to any religious authority, even science.

Right, and not all religions involve a hell, or a deity for that matter. The word in its most basic sense is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe (or lack thereof of course). Everyone has to call on something as an absolute authority, whether it be a deity or sensory perception. Just as someone might accuse me of having opinions based on the fact that I believe in the God of the Bible, I would submit that there are quite a few scientists that interperet the 'evidence' of their experiments with the presupposition that science is the final means of truth (evolution, etc.) and it just needs to be proven.

Quikly before I have to go to workYou can not rely on outside evidence to justify an absolute authority. Period. If your judgment of an authority is based on any other 'evidence' you are making that evidence an authority over the previous authority simply because you are basing the reliability of the first authority on the testimony of the second. This is not saying that the Bible is true or isn't true, but if it is true, the basis of believing that would have to start with what it says about itself. This can be supported by outside evidence, but not determined by outside evidence.Also, when God created Adam, He didn't create a zygote or two gamates that joined together, He created Adam as a man. If you were to see Adam an hour after God created him, you and your peers and any other person that you want to ask would say that he had been alive for years.

In that case, the way that you determine 'reality' be it sense perception, etc., is what you call the absolute authority.

In response to the question about the 2 Timothy passage, I would venture to say that it refers to all of the Bible, I can find more on that if you give me a few days. As for the infallable/inspired statement, I would think that if scripture is inspired by God it has to be infallable.

Your arguments for the meaning of the word 'inspired' would be great if the New Testament were written in English, but it wasn't. The Greek word that Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3:16 which is translated in the version that you used as 'inspired' is "Theopneustos" (my Greek font won't work). This word literally means "breathed out by God" or simply "God breathed." God sometimes breathed His words into the human writers to be recorded much as dictation. He said to Jeremiah: "Behold, I have put My words in your mouth" (Jer 1:9). But as clearly seen in Scripture itself, God's divine truth more often flowed through minds, souls, hearts and emotions of His chosen human instruments. Yet, by whatever means, God divinely superintended the accurate recording of His divinely breathed truth by His divinely chosen men.By the way, 2 Peter was written by Peter, not Paul.

Actually, it can have more meanings than just that, here are three:1. a writing, thing written
2. the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its
contents
3. a certain portion or section of the Holy ScriptureThese are from an online lexicon at: Graphe Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - King James VersionThe context of the verse in which "graphe" is used demands that it is something other than "everything written" or even the Old Testament, because in verse 15 we can see Paul speaking of "the sacred writings which are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Although Jesus Christ is hinted to in the Old Testament, those hints are far from sufficient to lead to salvation through faith in Christ.

But the only way that you can judge how well they conform to it is by comparing them to what you think "it" is based on your senses.

Well, this argument started because someone at the beginning of this thread explained how referring to what the Bible says about itself as proof for its authority is circular reasoning, which is correct buy the definition of circular reasoning. My original post was simply showing that if, in fact, the Bible is absolutely authoritative, the first place that we would have to look is at what the Bible says about itself. By judging whether it is true or not by some sort of outside evidence is making that evidence an authority over scripture. I was not suggesting whether scripture is inspired or not, but if it is, we can look at what it says about itself and circular reasoning is a good thing.The tangent came when someone said that this could refer to any 'religion' and I said that it also works with science. Most scientists belive (as Crashfrog has been driving at) that we distinguish what reality is through our sensory perception, which is fine to a point (because it is possible for the senses to be fooled) it just makes sensory perception out to be our absolute authority in determining reality.As for Crashfrog's post about the Scientific Method, thanks. I knew where you were going, I personally think that there might be some flaws in the way that the "scientific method" is applied, but I am in no position to argue such a thing with someone like you.