Is the Bible Infallible?

Do you believe the Bible is 100% as God intended, word-for-word perfection and exactly now as it was originally written?

Also, what is the best way to read the Bible?

The books in the Bible vary depending on what denomination you are/your Bible is. Isn't that ridiculous? Shouldn't we all have 100% of it? Hmm well see this is where it gets interesting. Over the centuries, various groups of men have decided which bits you should/shouldn't read (Canonization) It greatly depended on the denomination of the people making the decision...as they of course would want the Word of God to reflect their particular beliefs or desires.

I have had some interesting reactions when i have asked this questioning the past. I assume this is because; when you start questioning the validity of the Bible, you start questioning God. At least that's how a lot of people seem to see it. I honestly think differently; I have faith in God, not a book. Sure; I read bits of the Bible, and I have used it to make decisions...but that comes in behind whatever I feel God is leading me towards. I do believe there is an overarching message in the Bible, which is what we should remember.


Remember; The Bible was written by men. We must recognize that men are imperfect mortals. For my example, I will use Paul. The apostle Paul (not one of the 12 Apostles) never even met Jesus (before anyone says "I've never met him either, am I not a Christian?" That's not my point, you aren't writing a chapter of the Bible) He didn't even write most of what is attributed to him, himself. He employed Amanuensis (basically human typewriters, except they wrote by hand)

I suppose most notorious of Paul's writing is the bit about women.

1 Cor 14:34-35 The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1 Tim 2:11-14 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Both the above verses, along with the others from Paul, seem to put women somewhat below men in the pecking order. What people fail to do, however, is dig deeper. In fact most people I have discussed This and other subjects with, seem to completely ignore 1 Cor 14:34-35 and those like it.

1Cor 7:3-4 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

Confused yet? I was a little. Then I found this page. Some things I found enlightening;


The prevailing consensus among scripture scholars regarding the letters whose authorship is attributed to St. Paul, is that only seven truly came from his pen - Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1Thessalonians, and Philemon. This scholarly conclusion has an important implication for the present discussion. The two positive pronouncements cited above both come from authentic letters of St. Paul. They reflect the Apostle's original attitude towards women. On the other hand, three of the four letters were written not by the Apostle himself, but by his disciples, who had to accommodate following the Apostle's death. Christianity's concern then was survival in the predominantly patriarchal milieu. St. Paul's disciples, without losing the essence of their master's message, had to make some compromises and tone down certain revolutionary elements, such as the view regarding women.

and then;

The only statement that needs to be clarified in order to exonerate the Apostle, is 1Cor 14:34-35. Coming from an authentic letter of St. Paul, it openly contradicts his pronouncements on the equality and mutuality between men and women in Gal 3:28 and 1Cor 7:3-4. How can this contradiction be accounted for?

Paul's style and approach in 1Corinthians can resolve the apparent ambivalence. One of Paul's sources of information regarding the problems in Corinth were letters written by the Corinthians themselves. Careful analysis of 1 Corinthians reveals that the Apostle was deliberately and liberally using "Corinthian slogans", that is, he was lifting verbatim expressions used by the members of the community in the letters they wrote to him. These slogans are situated just before Paul's response to the various problems, thus serving like some kind of an introduction. To one who reads 1 Corinthians without any background, the slogans would read as though they were Paul's actual words. The statement in 1 Cor 14:34-35, ordering women to keep silence in the assembly, is considered by many scholars as a Corinthian slogan. Paul's response follows immediately in verse 36.

We can thus safely say that the original Paul was far from being a male chauvinist and anti-feminist. He was, in fact, a champion of eschatological egalitarianism.

So you see, there is a lot to learn if you don't take the Bible literally, and dig a bit.

When I think about how the Bible came to be as it is now..I think of a big game of Chinese Whispers. Remember, they didn't have scanners and photocopiers when the Bible was written. In fact I don't think they even had paper. They had stone tablets. Then we must take into account how many times the books of the Bible have had to be translated from another language. For instance, The Old Testament is primarily sourced from the Tanakh (Jewish Bible, which in itself has an interesting history) which was written mostly in an archaic form of Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic...a language very few people can understand...and the New Testament was written in Greek. The Hebrew bits were translated into Koine Greek at some stage (2nd or 3rd Century)

Then it was scribed. Now scribes did all sorts of things, such as writing bits in the margins if they forgot to write a particular word, or where emphasis should be places...and so on. Then when it was next scribed (once again, no photocopiers) how was the latest scribe to know which bits went whee, and whether to include what was in the margins or not? There are at least 3 styles of Greek that the scribes wrote in as well, just to add to the confusion. Welcome to textural criticism, ladies and gentlemen.

There is simply no way what everything that was written in Greek or Hebrew can be exactly translated to English. Especially when both languages have idioms and concepts that can't really be translated, not in a way we can understand anyway. Some things are literal, some are not. We do have English Bibles with both. For instance, KJV is traditionally 'literal' whereas NIV gives relevant parallel idioms. Apparently, anyway.

Lastly (as my fingers are cramping. but I will definitely come back with more later) there is individual interpretation. Anyone can twist whatever they read to suit whatever they want (within reason). As much as I hate to say it...A person's intelligence and level of education really come into play here.

Please remember, I am not talking about, or questioning God. I am talking about, and questioning the Bible. I believe it is possible to have deep faith and love for God, and still have an analytical approach to the Bible.

Please note; I posted this topic elsewhere, but it was locked and binned within 24 hours (fundamentalists; what can we expect?)