Is The Bible Infallible?

Names, Dates, and PlacesThis question is not about history, but about the reliability of the Bible, caused by what some see as an apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 1–3 and 2 Chronicles 21:12-15. The possibility of finding discrepancies and even tensions in the Bible is very real. But each case should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can be reached. I will describe this specific situation and suggest some possible solutions.1. Nature of the Problem: To read 2 Kings 1–3, one could get the impression that the ascension of Elijah occurred before the death of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (848 B.C.). The last king of Israel mentioned before God took the prophet was Joram, dated to the second year of Jehoram (852 B.C.), son of Jehoshaphat, in Judah (2 Kings 1:17). He was appointed as coregent before his father died (cf. 2 Kings 3:1). Elijah’s ascension to heaven is narrated in 2 Kings 2:11-18. Apparently, Elisha’s first prophetic responsibility was to reveal God’s will to Jehoshaphat and Joram before they went to war against Moab (2 Kings 3:11-19). But this is far from certain. The sole rule of Jehoram, after the death of his father Jehoshaphat in 848 B.C., is recorded in 2 Kings 8:16. So, the question is how Elijah, who supposedly was taken to heaven before the death of Jehoshaphat, could have written a letter to his son, King Jehoram, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15? (Do the names confuse you? In the Hebrew text Joram and Jehoram are spelled the same way!) 2. Was Elijah Taken to Heaven? In order to eliminate possible solutions to the problem, we should establish whether or not Elijah was taken to heaven. If he was simply translated to some other place on earth, then we would not have a problem at all. But the biblical text is clear: Elijah was taken to heaven. T he verb “to take” is used in the Bible only two times to refer to a person being removed from earth to the heavenly realm. The first was the experience of Enoch, whom “God took away” (Gen. 5:24; cf. Heb. 11:5). The other is the experience of Elijah. The description of that event could hardly leave any doubts concerning the fact that the text is describing God’s unique intervention in human history resulting in the rapture of the prophet: “Suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind” (2 Kings. 2:11, NIV). To emphasize the permanent departure of the prophet to the heavens, the narrative describes the insistence of some of the sons of the prophets to be allowed to go look for him: “Perhaps”—they argued—“the Spirit of the lord has picked him up and set him down on some mountain or in some valley” (verse 16). Knowing the truth, Elisha discouraged them, but finally let them go to search for Elijah. They didn’t find him.3. Chronology of Events: Since Elijah was indeed taken to heaven, the problem can be solved in several ways. The most unlikely one is that Elijah wrote the letter from heaven and it somehow reached the king. Another possibility is that he wrote the letter before he was taken by God and later someone else gave it to the king. This is possible, but the biblical text does not require that type of precision. For a more likely answer, let me first point out the obvious fact that Elijah’s rapture is not dated. Those who argue that it happened before the death of Jehoshaphat are simply filling in the gaps of knowledge based on the place of the story within the narrative. Second, students of the Bible know (and if they do not know they should) that biblical narratives are not always in chronological order. Consequently, we need to take into consideration all biblical data before dating a particular event. Third, if, according to the biblical text, Elijah was permanently taken to heaven, then the letter he wrote to King Jehoram after the death of the king’s father was written before God took Elijah. This in no way distorts the biblical information, but it helps us to harmonize what appears to be a serious discrepancy. The Sure WordThe question is in fact about the nature and purpose of textual criticism,* which happens to be a complex and difficult subject. Let me quote the passage from the original language, bracketing the section that is not original: "[verse 7] For there are three who testify [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (verse 8). And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three agree." Textual criticism is an attempt to differentiate among the different textual variants or readings of the biblical text in order to identify what was probably the original reading. Confused? Let me explain.First, textual criticism is based on the fact that we do not have the original documents written by the biblical writers. For instance, we do not have the book of Acts as it came from the hands of Luke, only copies of it.Second, we have more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and when we compare them with each other we find in many cases additions, deletions, and other types of changes. We call those variant readings.Textual criticism analyzes those differences to determine which ones were later additions or modifications made to the original, as well as the possible reasons for the changes. Most of the changes were accidental, but some were done intentionally, supposedly to clarify the meaning of the original text.How do scholars go about determining the original reading of a biblical passage? They use three lines of evidence: the Greek manuscripts, quotations of the New Testament in early Christian writings, and early Bible translations (e.g., Latin, Syriac, etc.). The process takes into consideration, among other things, the date and internal quality of the manuscript, presupposing that a very early date could preserve a more original reading. Generally, the more difficult reading is considered to be original because scribes tended to add to the text to "clarify" it. Consequently, a shorter reading tends to be preferred over a longer one—although in some cases the scribes accidentally skipped words or phrases, and in other cases they dropped parts of verses they considered irrelevant or repetitious. They sometimes replaced uncommon words with more common ones, softened grammatical constructions, and made the text easier to read.Textual critics also take into consideration the scripture itself as a criterion in the selection of the original reading. In the context of the whole biblical book, what would the writer most likely have written, considering the vocabulary, the style, and the context?There is general agreement that textual variants do not affect any of the biblical doctrines.In the case some cite, I know quite well what happened. The bracketed section shows up for the first time in manuscripts of the Latin version only after A.D. 600. It is not found in Greek manuscripts until after A.D. 1400. Henceforth, according to the experts, it is found in four Greek manuscripts as a translation from the Latin and inserted into the Greek text. The addition is not found in any of the other ancient versions.How did it become part of the Greek text? Here is "the rest of the story."When Erasmus published his version of the Greek New Testament, he left out the additions to 1 John 5:7 from his first two editions (1516, 1519), arguing that he could not find those words in any Greek manuscript. Pressured by some to include this addition to the Greek text, Erasmus proposed that if they could show him a single Greek manuscript in which the addition was found, he would include it in his next edition.Sure enough, they came up with a Greek manuscript in which the addition was found, one scholars believe was dated from the sixteenth century A.D., translated from the Latin to the Greek and added to the Greek text. Erasmus subsequently included it in his 1522 edition of the Greek New Testament.The Trinity is a biblical doctrine, and you can preach about it. But you should not use this text.*In this context the word "criticism" means "analysis."What about the Apocrypha? The word “Apocrypha” is Greek for “hidden things.” No one knows for certain why some Jewish books were designated by that title. Perhaps they were originally thought to contain a kind of secret knowledge, available only to a particular group. The books of the Apocrypha were produced between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D. The list of books or materials generally included in the Apocrypha are: 1, 2 Esdras; 1, 2 Maccabees; Tobit; Judith; additions to Esther and Daniel; Prayer of Manasseh, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah; Psalm 151; Sirach (Ecclesiasticus); and the Wisdom of Solomon. Most of those books were incorporated into the Old Testament canon of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. 1. The Apocrypha and the Greek Version of the Old Testament: It is usually argued that the Apocrypha was originally included in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and from there it came into the Christian Bible. But that is far from certain. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the (Septuagint (LXX), began in the first half of the third century B.C. At that time it was almost certainly a translation of only the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch or Torah). Little is known about the process that led to the translation of the rest of the Old Testament into Greek, particularly to the translation or incorporation of the books we call the Apocrypha. We do not know the exact books included in the Septuagint during the time of the apostles. Neither do we know whether there ever was an official list of apocryphal books. We do know that Jews never considered those books to be part of the Hebrew canon. But we also know the Jews esteemed them and read them. Manuscripts or fragments of some of the books have been found among the Dead Sea scrolls. 2. The Apocrypha and the Christian Church: It used to be believed that Christians took as their Bible the larger Jewish Alexandrian canon that included the Apocrypha. That idea has been totally discredited. In the early centuries of the Christian era there was some debate among Christians concerning those books. The most-well-known case is that of Jerome (A.D. 345-420). He decided to translate the Old Testament into Latin using the Septuagint, which then already included most of the apocryphal books. But he decided to base his translation on the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Although he included the Apocrypha in his translation, he made it clear that those books should not be considered part of the inspired canon and should not be used to establish Christian beliefs. His canon was the short Hebrew canon. Nevertheless, he considered the Apocrypha worth reading.Augustine argued that a Latin translation of the Bible should be based on the Septuagint so as to contribute to the unity of the church in both the east, where Greek was used, and in the west, where Latin was used. He argued for regarding the Apocrypha as inspired, and his views prevailed. The Latin Bible (the Vulgate) became the official Bible of the Christian church. 3. The Apocrypha and the Reformation: The Reformers revisited the questions of the Apocrypha. In his translation of the Bible into German, Martin Luther included the apocryphal books, but, like Jerome, did not consider them equal in authority to the Scripture, and established they should not be used to define Christian doctrine. Reformed tradition totally excluded the Apocrypha from the canon, accepting instead the shorter Hebrew canon.One of the reasons for the rejection of the Apocrypha was that the books supported some erroneous views, contrary to those promoted by the church as Christian dogmas. For instance, they support the idea that human works contribute to salvation (Tob. 4:7-11), that saints can intercede for others (2 Macc. 15:13-14), and that atonement can be made on behalf of the sins of the dead (2 Macc. 12:39-45).Today many Bible versions and translations include the apocryphal books. Although not considered inspired by God, they contain information that contributes to a better understanding of the development of Jewish thought during the period between the Old and New Testaments and provide useful cultural, historical, and religious backgrounds for the study of the New Testament.Clean Robes and Keeping the CommandmentsMost Bible translations are made by committees formed by specialists from different Jewish and Christian religious traditions. A conspiracy would require the different organizations sponsoring new Bible translations and each member of the translation committees to be in agreement concerning changing the content of the Bible. This is unrealistic. In fact, translations made by committees are usually much better than those made by a single individual or denomination. The fact that you find readings not found in some of the older Bibles does not prove that there is a conspiracy. Each different reading must be evaluated on its own merits. Read several Bible commentaries before you reach your conclusion. Good commentaries will contain information concerning the different manuscripts and the textual and historical evidence concerning a particular reading. Let's use Revelation 22:14 as a case study. 1. Textual Evidence: The different manuscripts provide the two main readings mentioned in your question. "Robes" is found in the earliest manuscripts available to us (fourth and fifth centuries A.D.) and several later manuscripts (e.g., eleventh and fifteenth centuries). The earliest manuscript supporting "commandments" is dated to the eighth century A.D., and preserved in many later manuscripts. However, there are references to Revelation 22:14 in Tertullian (145-220) and Cyprian (200-258) using the word "commandments" instead of "robes." In other words, the textual evidence is divided. When all the evidence is taken into consideration one must acknowledge that its weight tends to support "robes." The fact that Tertullian and Cyprian appear to have used a text in which the word "commandments" was used is significant but not necessarily decisive. 2. The Use of the Verb "Keep": Since the textual evidence is not as strong as scholars would like it to be, they examine both readings of the text in terms of the use of the phrase in John's writings. They observe that in Revelation 22:14 the verb translated "keep" is poieo (to do, to keep). But in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12, the other two places where keeping the commandments is mentioned, the verb used is tereo (to keep, observe, obey). This, it is argued, shows that John did not write "keep the commandments" in Revelation 22:14, because he had consistently used the verb tereo in the other passages. A scribe, perhaps unintentionally, changed the original text from "robes" to "commandments." Both readings sound very similar in Greek. The stylistic argument is strong but not as strong as it sounds. John does tend to use the verb tereo when refer-ring to the commandments (e.g. 1 John 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24), but he also uses the verb poieo (1 John 5:2). Hence, the stylistic argument is not decisive either, though it leans slightly toward "wash their robes." 3. The Theological Argument: It is also argued that the theology expressed in the reading "wash their robes" is compatible with the theology of John. The same phrase, "wash their robes," is found in Revelation 7:14 to describe the redeemed ones standing before the throne of God. Their sins were washed away by the blood of the Lamb and not their obedience to the commandments. In Revelation 22:14 they have access to the tree of life because Christ washed their robes. Theologically this reading perfectly fits the theology of John. But we must not overlook the fact that "keep the commandments" could be referring to constant growth in grace or sanctification (the present tense of the verb suggests continuous action). The phrase "that they may have the right to the tree of life" expresses the reason for keeping the commandments: "Because they will have . . . " rather than "in order to have access . . ." Both readings of the text are plausible, but the evidence provides an edge to the reading "wash their robes." This does not alter the fact that God expects His end-time people to keep His commandments (Rev. 12:17; 14:12). This is not a conspiracy but a sincere attempt to define the original reading of the text.

I don’t think neither of you read what I posted honestly: naughty:I am addressing some of the inconsistencies of the Bible Translations from a theological stand point. Some people have pointed out these inconsistencies, and I have Addressed them making it know that it is not the word of God that is inconsistent but some translations. Please don't imply that I don’t think the bible is not infallible. To me that is offensive.